remove_from_shelfTakes materials off the shelf of materials on hand, by name. The materials themselves stay. The shelf as it was is kept: undo_shelf_change puts it back. Needs an access token that can read and change your records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| materials | Yes | The materials, by name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already mark the operation as destructive and non-idempotent; the description adds crucial context that the underlying materials remain and that the shelf change can be undone via undo_shelf_change. It also discloses the access-token requirement, which goes beyond the structured annotations.
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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted language. It conveys the action, its effect on materials, reversibility, and auth requirement efficiently.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and clear destructive annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: what is removed, what is not removed, how to revert, and the permission requirement. Nothing needed to select and invoke it correctly is missing.
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 the parameter is already documented as an array of material names. The description reiterates that materials are referenced by name, but adds no additional syntax, constraints, or examples beyond the schema.
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 verb and resource: taking materials off the shelf of materials on hand. It clearly distinguishes this from shelf-listing or adding actions by naming the shelf relationship and the undo path.
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 description makes clear this is for removing named materials from the current shelf and points to undo_shelf_change when the change should be reversed. It does not explicitly compare against add_to_shelf or move_to_trash, but the removal context is unambiguous.
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.