Skip to main content
Glama

A2UI Atomic Catalog

unpublish_url

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a published short link before its TTL using the delete_token returned by publish_url.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "delete_token": "<delete_token>"
    },
    "name": "unpublish_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe published link id, or the full short URL (https://a2uicatalog.ai/s/<id>) returned by publish_url.
delete_tokenYesThe delete_token that publish_url returned for this link.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesTrue when the link was deleted.
dataNoResult detail.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the authorization requirement (a delete_token issued by publish_url) and clarifies the destruction target is the published link, which is meaningful context beyond the structured hints.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the credential source attached. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the two required parameters are fully described. The only modest gap is post-deletion behavior or failure handling for an invalid/expired token, which is minor for a tool this simple.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the id-or-full-URL form. The description only reinforces the provenance of delete_token; with the schema doing the heavy lifting, 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?

The description gives a specific verb (delete) and resource (a published short link), with a scope qualifier (before its TTL) and a named counterpart (publish_url). An agent can distinguish this from publish_url and other sibling tools without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is clearly implied: call this to revoke a link while it is still live, and the delete_token must come from the earlier publish_url call. It does not explicitly state what to do after TTL expiry or that no alternative revocation path exists, but the context is unambiguous.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.