Remove a line item from the cart. Requires the item_id from the cart contents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cart_id | Yes | Cart ID | |
| item_id | Yes | Line item ID from the cart (cart.items[].item_id) | |
| site_id | Yes | Registered site ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| items | Yes | ||
| total | Yes | ||
| cartId | Yes | ||
| siteId | Yes | ||
| subtotal | Yes | ||
| discounts | No |
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?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as what happens if the item doesn't exist or if removal affects cart totals or state.
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, front-loaded with the core action, and no extraneous information. Every sentence is valuable.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (remove item), the description is adequate. There is an output schema (not shown) to document return values, but the description doesn't elaborate on post-removal state or errors.
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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description repeats the requirement for item_id but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema.
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 action 'Remove a line item from the cart', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_to_cart and set_cart_quantity.
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 mentions the requirement for item_id from cart contents, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource, with detailed descriptions that clearly differentiate cart management, checkout flow, payment steps, delegation, orders, and product operations. Potential overlaps like get_active_cart vs. get_cart are resolved by their specific use cases.
All tools use a consistent verb_noun_snake_case pattern (e.g., add_to_cart, set_shipping_address). There are no mixing of conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.
26 tools is on the higher side but appropriate for a comprehensive e-commerce server covering product discovery, cart management, checkout, payment, orders, and reviews. Could potentially be streamlined slightly, but still reasonable.
The tool set covers the full e-commerce lifecycle: site listing, product search/compare/reviews, cart CRUD, coupon application, shipping, checkout, payment with delegation and OTP, order retrieval, and back-in-stock alerts. No obvious gaps for typical buyer workflows.
