remove_fontRemove a custom font family.
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": {
"family": "<family>"
},
"name": "remove_font"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| family | Yes | ||
| projectId | No | Project to act on (default: the open one) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the target is a custom font family; it does not explain irreversibility, the effect on projects using the font, or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for a simple destructive tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation with no output schema and only half the parameters documented, the description is too thin. It omits what removal affects, whether it is reversible, and how projectId scopes the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%: projectId is documented in the schema, but the required family parameter has no description. The phrase 'custom font family' hints at family but gives no format or constraints, and the description does not mention projectId's default behavior, so it does not compensate for the undocumented required parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb, 'Remove', and a specific resource, 'custom font family', which distinguishes it from add_google_font and list_fonts by scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the target resource is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The agent must infer that this is for deleting a custom font rather than a Google font or an uploaded font.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.