Removes a template from the cart.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Slug of the template to remove. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | Always true: the slug is no longer in the cart. | |
| total | Yes | Lines the cart has after this call. | |
| wasThere | Yes | It was inside and has been removed. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"Slug de la plantilla a quitar."New value: +"Slug of the template to remove."Output schema / properties / ok / descriptionPrevious value: -"Siempre true: el slug ya no está en el carrito."New value: +"Always true: the slug is no longer in the cart."Output schema / properties / total / descriptionPrevious value: -"Líneas que tiene el carrito después de la llamada."New value: +"Lines the cart has after this call."Output schema / properties / wasThere / descriptionPrevious value: -"Estaba dentro y se ha quitado."New value: +"It was inside and has been removed."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of signaling mutation; 'removes' does communicate a destructive side effect. However, it does not disclose idempotency, behavior for a slug not in the cart, or reversibility, though these are somewhat implicit for a cart removal.
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?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to the tool's meaning.
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 one-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description is essentially sufficient: it names the action, the target, and the parameter is self-explanatory. It could add usage caveats, but nothing critical is missing at this complexity level.
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 description coverage is 100% and 'slug' is already documented as 'Slug of the template to remove.' The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond confirming the singular operation.
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?
The description states a specific action ('Removes a template') on a specific resource ('the cart'), making the intent unmistakable and clearly different from sibling operations like add_to_cart and my_cart.
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?
The verb 'removes' implies when to use it (when deleting a template from the cart), but there is no explicit guidance about prerequisites, such as the template needing to be in the cart, nor an explicit contrast with add_to_cart/my_cart.
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.