modules_uninstallUninstalls a module from the active site. Module data may be lost.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Operation to run. Each oneOf entry describes one action and lists its parameters. | |
| confirm | Yes | Pass true only after the user approves this change. Required by: module_uninstall. | |
| module_code | Yes | Lowercase module code, as listed by modules_list (field module) or active_mods (field code) on the active site. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "action"
-]New value: +[
+ "action",
+ "module_code",
+ "confirm"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is declared. The description's "Module data may be lost" sharpens that into a concrete consequence (data, not just config) and adds the "active site" scoping, but says nothing about required permissions, reversibility, or dependency effects.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action and its risk front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.
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 3-parameter, confirm-gated destructive tool with full schema coverage and explicit destructive annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It only misses prerequisites such as dependencies or whether data loss is immediate vs deferred.
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% and the schema itself documents module_code lookup sources and the confirm approval gate. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb+resource with scope: "Uninstalls a module from the active site." An agent can distinguish it from modules_read/modules_write, though the description never explicitly contrasts uninstall with a disable/deactivate path via modules_write.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus the sibling modules_write or modules_read tools, and no prerequisites or warnings about dependencies. Usage is only implied by the verb.
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.