checklist_item_removeRemove one step from a checklist by its I01-style id and bump the checklist version. Runs already under way keep the step they started with, so nothing anybody already ticked is rewritten.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes | The step id, e.g. I03, as shown by checklist_show | |
| checklist | Yes | The checklist id, e.g. CL-0001, or its name when only one carries it |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it bumps the checklist version, preserves already-started runs, and guarantees no ticked data is rewritten. This goes beyond what annotations alone communicate.
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 with no filler: the first states the action, target, and side effect; the second covers the important non-destructive nuance for active runs. Every sentence carries weight.
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 low-complexity two-parameter mutation with a robust description, the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly. There is no output schema and no mention of error cases, but the side effects and input semantics are sufficiently covered.
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 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented. The description adds the 'I01-style id' format phrase and the version-bump side effect, but these do not substantially expand parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Description opens with a specific verb and resource: remove one step from a checklist by id, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling checklist_delete (whole checklist) and checklist_item_add (opposite operation). It also names the id style and the version side effect, leaving no ambiguity.
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?
Clear context: this is the targeted single-step removal tool, so an agent can infer it is the right sibling when modifying a checklist item rather than deleting the whole checklist. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the scope is unambiguous.
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.