Exclui peças do catálogo do iClips (o provider faz exclusão lógica). Aceita piece_ids para remover várias de uma vez, em lote, com erro reportado por id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| piece_ids | Yes |
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?
The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that the provider performs logical deletion and that errors are reported per id. This complements the destructiveHint=true annotation without contradicting it.
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 succinct sentences front-load the core action and follow with the key batch and error-reporting behavior. There is no filler or repetition.
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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the key call context: logical deletion, multi-id batching, and per-id error reporting. The undocumented 'account' parameter is a minor gap but does not undermine overall usability.
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?
The description explains that piece_ids enables batch deletion and per-id error reporting, which adds value beyond the bare schema. However, with 0% schema coverage, the optional 'account' parameter is left completely undocumented, so compensation is only partial.
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 clearly states the tool deletes pieces from the iClips catalog, a specific verb and resource. The logical deletion note adds a meaningful scope distinction, and the delete operation is clearly differentiated from sibling get/list/write tools.
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 implies when to use the tool: to delete pieces, including multiple at once via piece_ids. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some routing to inference.
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.
Many tools are near-duplicates, such as iclips_financial_entries_get/list, iclips_pieces_get/list, iclips_pieces_write_create/update/checklist, and iclips_workflow_templates_get/list, all sharing essentially the same description. authenticate and connect also overlap on session/connection status, so an agent must rely on brittle naming conventions rather than clear semantic boundaries.
The iClips tools mostly follow iclips_<resource>_<action>, but the server mixes noun-only names like iclips_financial_accounts and marketplace, camelCase platform names like toolkit_info and show_version, and artificial get/list flattened duplicates. The pattern is only predictable within a subset of the tool list, not across the entire server.
At 30 tools, the set is over-inflated for its actual scope: most are flattened get/list or write-action variants of roughly a dozen underlying iClips operations, plus six unrelated platform utilities. The domain could be cleanly served in about half this many tools without losing functionality.
Jobs and pieces have reasonable CRUD coverage, but there is no client/group or destination master lookup even though clientId is required to create a job and destination_id filters financial entries. Job pieces and tasks also lack delete operations, and financial categories are not enumerable, leaving noticeable dead ends for common workflows.