@zients/line-mcp-server

Delete Rich Menu

delete_rich_menu

Delete a rich menu by providing its unique ID. Permanently removes the menu from your LINE account.

Instructions

Delete a rich menu by its ID.

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": {
      "richMenuId": "<richMenuId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_rich_menu"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`richMenuId`	Yes	Rich menu ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Sep 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete a rich menu by its ID' without mentioning that deletion is permanent, that the ID must exist, or any side effects (e.g., removing default status). For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse. This is an example of appropriate conciseness.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. However, it omits important operational context such as whether deletion is irreversible or what happens if the ID is invalid. While not strictly necessary, mentioning permanence would improve completeness for an agent deciding to call this tool.

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?

The input schema fully describes the single parameter 'richMenuId' as 'Rich menu ID' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces this by saying 'by its ID' but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the burden.

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?

The description states a specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'rich menu' with a clear method 'by its ID', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_rich_menu or create_rich_menu. An agent can immediately understand the action 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The description clearly indicates the operation (deletion) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites such as obtaining the ID from list_rich_menus or warnings about irreversibility. It is clear enough for a straightforward delete, but lacks contextual routing.

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

Deploy Server