Skip to main content
Glama

yuque_delete_book_stack

Permanently deletes a knowledge base group (book stack) after confirmation with 'DELETE'; ensure the group is empty first because deletion cannot be undone.

Instructions

删除知识库分组(书架)。⚠️ 不可恢复!需传 confirm='DELETE' 二次确认。DELETE /api/book_stacks/{stack_id}。分组内须先清空知识库。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "stack_id": "<stack_id>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "yuque_delete_book_stack"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmYes危险操作二次确认,必须传 'DELETE'
stack_idYes要删除的分组 ID(书架 ID,必填)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv4.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it flags irreversibility ('⚠️ 不可恢复!'), the required two-step confirmation with confirm='DELETE', and the emptiness precondition. Gaps remain — nothing is said about permission/auth requirements or what happens to the response or to any contained resources.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Very compact and front-loaded: the resource, then the danger warning, then the confirmation rule, then the precondition. The repeated endpoint path is slightly redundant with the schema-declared parameters but still adds useful structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and while the description covers the destructive nature, confirmation rule and precondition well for a two-parameter tool, it omits permission requirements and the response/error behavior. It is adequate but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented; the description repeats the confirm='DELETE' requirement and shows stack_id as a path parameter, adding only modest context beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb plus resource ('删除知识库分组(书架)'), which unambiguously separates it from sibling book-stack tools such as create, rename, sort and update. The HTTP endpoint (DELETE /api/book_stacks/{stack_id}) reinforces the operation and target.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete precondition — the group's knowledge bases must be emptied first ('分组内须先清空知识库') — which is the main thing an agent could get wrong. No explicit alternative is named for the empty-versus-non-empty case, so it falls just short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.