CrunchJunkie

remove_widget

Remove one widget from a report by its exact id (from get_report). Deterministic — no AI interpretation. Returns the removed widget's configuration so it can be re-created if needed. Requires MCP write actions; without confirm:true it returns a preview.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "reportId": "<reportId>",
      "widgetId": "<widgetId>"
    },
    "name": "remove_widget"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	No	Set true to remove it. Omit for a preview. With confirm:true, also pass the preview's previewToken.
`reportId`	Yes	Report id (from list_reports).
`widgetId`	Yes	Exact widget id (from get_report).
`previewToken`	No	With confirm:true: the previewToken from this tool's preview (valid 15 minutes, once, for exactly the previewed arguments).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 24, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

First observedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: a preview-then-confirm two-step gate, the auth requirement ('MCP write actions'), and the fact that the removed configuration is returned so it can be re-created. Minor tension exists with destructiveHint=false given the word 'remove', though the preview gate and recoverable return payload make that defensible rather than contradictory.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then return value, then the auth/preview gate. No filler and nothing repeated from the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly fills that gap by naming the return payload. Mutation safety, auth, and the preview/confirm protocol are all covered, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents confirm, previewToken lifetime/single-use, and both id sources, so the description mostly restates it. It does reinforce the 'exact id' requirement and confirm behavior, but adds no format or edge-case detail absent from the schema.

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+resource+scope: 'Remove one widget from a report by its exact id'. The singular framing and the id-source pointer make it immediately distinguishable from add_widget, edit_widget, and report-level siblings like update_report_settings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete preconditions: the widget id comes from get_report, the call requires MCP write actions, and omitting confirm yields a preview rather than a deletion. It never explicitly names edit_widget as the non-destructive alternative, which is the only missing routing hint.

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

All CrunchJunkie tools Inspect

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

Need Help?