sparkroom.remove_itemRemove the selected room item after confirmation, retaining its source document. Previously downloaded copies cannot be recalled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | ||
| room_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes | ||
| expected_version | Yes | ||
| confirmation_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
Even though annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds genuinely valuable behavioral context: it specifies exactly what is destroyed (the room item) versus what is retained (the source document), and it discloses that 'previously downloaded copies cannot be recalled.' This irreversibility warning clarifies the scope of destruction beyond what the structured hints convey.
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?
Two sentences totaling under 25 words, with the core action and its scoping front-loaded in the first sentence and the critical irreversibility warning in the second. There is no filler and no redundant restatement of the title.
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?
The description covers the key behavioral facts for a destructive operation, and the output schema handles return values, but it omits how an agent obtains the confirmation_token and what expected_version means for concurrency control. For a tool with five required parameters and a confirmation workflow, those are significant gaps.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for six parameters. It only hints at confirmation_token via 'after confirmation' and at item selection via 'selected room item,' but it leaves expected_version (the 64-hex hash suggesting an optimistic concurrency guard) and idempotency_key completely unexplained. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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) and a clear resource (the selected room item), then adds scoping detail: 'after confirmation, retaining its source document.' This makes the removal action unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like sparkroom.update_item, which handles modifications rather than removal.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sparkroom.update_item or sparkroom.add_documents. The phrase 'after confirmation' implies a precondition, but the description never states the conditions that select this tool over other SparkRoom operations.
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.
Domain prefixes (crm., cap_table., landing.) clearly separate broad modules, and most tools target a specific resource and action. However, within modules there are boundary overlaps—crm.add_contact_note vs crm.log_activity and cap_table.dilution_preview vs cap_table.simulate_raise—where descriptions must be read carefully to avoid a wrong pick.
The dominant pattern is module.verb_noun (e.g., crm.create_lead, cap_table.update_stakeholder), which is clear and readable. But a subset of top-level tools uses object_verb with flat underscores (e.g., shortlink_create, qr_generate, campaign_archive) and one outlier (campaign_stats) breaks the verb pattern, so conventions are mixed.
86 tools is an extreme surface for any single MCP server, well past the 50+ threshold that makes coherent selection impractical. Even though the features span several business domains, this would be far more usable split into focused servers per module.
The covered domains are broadly complete: cap table, CRM, incorporation, landing, projects, sparkroom, tasks, and validation all have read/write workflows with few dead ends. Minor gaps remain (no campaign listing/update, no branding palette delete/update, no contact deletion) but none of them blocks the main product workflows.