Remove a published tool by its local name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| tenant_key | No | The key `signup` returned. Required only when this connection carries no Authorization: Bearer header -- when both are present, the header wins. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'Remove' does signal a destructive mutation, but the description omits irreversibility, permission/auth requirements, and side effects on running tools or published metadata.
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?
One short sentence with no filler. The most important scoping detail—'local name'—is included, and every word earns its place.
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 simple two-parameter destructive tool, the description gives the essential operation and target, but lacks caveats about reversibility, authentication context beyond tenant_key, and expected result or error behavior. With no output schema and no annotations, these gaps leave some uncertainty for an agent.
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 50%: tenant_key is already well described, and the description adds the key fact that 'name' is the local name rather than a registry/global name. It does not specify expected format or the consequence of removing a nonexistent tool, so it only partially compensates.
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 ('Remove'), a clear resource ('a published tool'), and a scope qualifier ('by its local name'). This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like host.tool_publish or host.tool_list.
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 implies the trigger condition—use when you want to remove a published tool—but never states exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. An agent can infer the basic use case, but no explicit when-not or comparison guidance is provided.
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.
Most tools target a clearly distinct resource or lifecycle stage, with billing, secret, and tool-publishing groups nicely separated. The main ambiguity is among host.tool_call, host.tool_test, and host.tool_run, which all invoke a published tool in slightly different modes; the descriptions clarify this, but the names alone could mislead an agent.
The namespace prefixes billing.* and host.* provide a consistent organizational pattern, and host.tool_* tools use a predictable resource-action style. Deviations like signup, host.quickstart, host.usage, and host.whoami break the pattern, but they are few and still readable.
At 17 tools, the server is slightly over the typical well-scoped 3-15 range, but the breadth is justified by the multi-tenant hosting domain: signup, billing, tool lifecycle, secrets, debugging, and usage observability each need dedicated tools. Every tool has a plausible role, so the count feels reasonable rather than bloated.
The tool lifecycle is well covered with publish, list, test, run, call, logs, and remove, and billing/usage/signup are present. Notable gaps remain, though: secret_set has no corresponding secret_delete, there is no tenant update/delete operation, and host.registry_publish references admin.tenant_verify_namespace, which is not exposed in this tool set.