Remove one or more items from a collection. Pass a single item_id or an array of item_ids for batch removal. Items are NOT deleted — they stay in the Grabblist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Why this change was made (shown to user in change history) | |
| item_ids | Yes | Item ID or array of item IDs to remove | |
| collection_id | Yes | The collection ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the crucial nuance that the destruction is scoped to collection membership — items survive in the Grabblist — which resolves the apparent tension with destructiveHint. It does not mention the reason field's side effect or auth needs.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the batch mechanism, then the critical non-destructive clarification. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 3-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations that already carry the safety profile, the description covers the one genuinely ambiguous point (membership removal vs. deletion). No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Only the reason parameter's provenance is unaddressed.
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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the single-vs-array behavior of item_ids but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, and says nothing about the reason parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 resource (items from a collection), and immediately disambiguates from the destructive sibling delete_item by clarifying that items are NOT deleted. An agent can tell this apart from delete_item without opening either schema.
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?
It explains the mechanics of batch vs single removal (single item_id or array), which implies the intended calling pattern, but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over delete_item or restore_item beyond the 'not deleted' note. Usage is implied rather than stated.
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.
