Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Glazecalc

by com.glazecalcapp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Move one of my records to the Trash

move_to_trash
DestructiveIdempotent

Moves one of your recipes, materials, notebook entries or firing logs to the Trash, as removing it on the website does. It can be put back from the Trash on the website for 30 days; nothing is deleted for good. A token moves at most 100 an hour, and none while the Trash is full. Remove only what the person asked to remove. Needs an access token that can read and change your records.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesIts id, from list_recipes, list_my_materials, list_notes or list_firings.
revNoThe record’s rev as you last read it. When given, the change is made only if the record has not changed since; otherwise nothing is changed. Left out, the change is always made.
kindYesWhat it is: a note is a notebook entry.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / rev
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The record’s rev as you last read it. When given, the change is made only if the record has not changed since; otherwise nothing is changed. Left out, the change is always made.",
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: 30-day recoverability, no permanent deletion, a 100-per-hour per-token cap, refusal while the Trash is full, and the required read/write token scope. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before invoking a destructive mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and target resources, then the reversibility window, rate limits, and auth requirement — every sentence carries information. Slightly dense as a single block, but there is no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers reversibility, throttling, failure conditions, auth scope, and a safety constraint on scope of removal. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, with 'rev' fully explained as an optimistic-concurrency guard and 'kind' carrying an enum plus a note mapping. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating the resource kinds, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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?

States a specific verb ('Moves ... to the Trash') plus the exact resource set (recipes, materials, notebook entries, firing logs), and clarifies the website-equivalent semantics. An agent can distinguish this from remove_from_shelf or update_recipe 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 Guidelines3/5

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

It gives a scope constraint ('Remove only what the person asked to remove') and explains the operation is reversible, which shapes when to call it. However, it never explicitly routes the agent away from alternatives such as remove_from_shelf (which detaches rather than trashes) or names the condition that selects this tool over them.

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

All Glazecalc 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