Skip to main content
Glama

Uwear

by ai.uwear
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Clear Shoot Board

mcp_clear_context
DestructiveIdempotent

Clear all Shoot Board items, or only one context type.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoContext type to remove; omit to clear the entire Shoot Board
board_idYesThe open Shoot Board's board_id, from Open Shoot Board or your context.
board_versionNoPass 2 to receive board v2 state, including the board's output settings
expected_revisionYesBoard revision this write is based on; a stale revision returns a revision_conflict error with the current board instead of overwriting it

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / board_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The open Shoot Board's board_id, from Open Shoot Board or your context.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / board_version
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Pass 2 to receive board v2 state, including the board's output settings",
+  "enum": [
+    2
+  ],
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / expected_revision
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Board revision this write is based on; a stale revision returns a revision_conflict error with the current board instead of overwriting it",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "clothing",
-  "models",
-  "outfits",
-  "generations",
-  "file",
-  "files",
-  "location",
-  "locations"
-]New value: +[
+  "clothing",
+  "models",
+  "outfits",
+  "generations",
+  "file",
+  "files",
+  "location",
+  "locations",
+  "art_direction",
+  "art_directions",
+  "automation",
+  "automations"
+]
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[]New value: +[
+  "board_id",
+  "expected_revision"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as irreversibility of the wipe, the revision-conflict guard, or what happens to dependent items; it essentially restates the purpose.

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?

A single tight sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the variant clause second. No filler, though the extreme brevity leaves room for a clause that would earn its place.

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?

For a destructive, revision-guarded write with no output schema, the annotations and 100% schema coverage carry most of the load, so the description is minimally sufficient. It nonetheless omits confirmation of irreversibility and the revision-conflict recovery path, which an agent invoking a destructive clear would benefit from.

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 all four parameters (including the type enum and expected_revision) are already documented in the schema. The description's 'only one context type' merely echoes the type parameter's own description, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb (clear) and resource (Shoot Board items), plus a scope variant (a single context type). It is distinguishable from siblings like mcp_add_context and mcp_replace_context by verb, though it doesn't name those alternatives directly.

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 phrase 'or only one context type' implies the two usage modes (clear everything when no type is given, clear selectively when it is), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided relative to replace_context or modify_shoot_board. Usage is inferable from the schema rather than stated.

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

All Uwear toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources