remove_content
Remove your content
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content_id | Yes |
Manto — 馒头新闻
TDQS
C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a removal operation but does not state whether deletion is permanent, whether it is reversible, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur. This is a notable gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. 'Remove your content' contains no structural detail or enumerated behavior, so the brevity does not serve the agent's decision-making.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with a single parameter, but the description still leaves critical context uncovered: what 'your content' means, what the content_id identifies, whether the removal is permanent, and what the outcome looks like. Without annotations or an output schema, more detail is required for appropriate use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the content_id parameter at all. The agent receives no added meaning beyond the parameter name and type, and the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'remove' and identifies the resource as 'content', so the basic action is clear and distinct from sibling tools like publish or search. However, 'your content' is vague and does not specify what kind of content, whether it refers to articles, accounts, or other entities, or what distinguishes this from potential deletion of other resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative. The description simply states the action without mentioning prerequisites, conditions, or context, and does not reference sibling tools such as publish or list_account_articles that might be relevant for content lifecycle decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources and actions, such as account creation versus lookup versus article listing. Minor overlap exists between get_account (which includes recent content) and list_account_articles, but the descriptions are clear enough to avoid serious misselection.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming mostly follows a clear verb_noun pattern, e.g., create_account, get_recharge, remove_content, set_promotion. A few tools like publish and search are bare verbs, creating a minor inconsistency, but the overall pattern remains predictable and readable.
Tool Count5/5
Ten tools is well-scoped for a news content management platform covering accounts, publishing, searching, recharges, and promotion. Each tool serves a distinct functional need without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness4/5
The server covers core content lifecycle operations with publish (create/update), remove_content (delete), list_account_articles (read), and search. Minor gaps exist such as no explicit get/delete for accounts or a way to view current promotion settings, but the main workflows are supported.