Skip to main content
Glama

Remove Components

helpcenter_remove_template_components
DestructiveIdempotent

Remove components from the draft, with everything nested inside them.

It edits the help center's design DRAFT (its v2 template): the draft the dashboard's Template Editor opens, with a live preview. Nothing reaches visitors until helpcenter_publish_template — after editing, give the customer the Template Editor link from the result to review, and publish only when they ask. v2 help centers only (a classic one answers template_migration_required). Ids come from helpcenter_get_template.

In a synced region the component goes from every page. Visitors keep seeing it until the draft is published; undoing it means adding it again (helpcenter_add_template_components) or discarding every unpublished change (helpcenter_discard_template_changes). This is the guide's remove_component operation.

Args:

  • components (array, 1-50): {id, page?}; page when an unsynced region holds the id on several pages.

  • etag (string, optional): from your last read or edit; refuses (stale_draft) if the draft changed since.

Returns: what each entry did (new ids), warnings worth relaying, and the draft status with its new etag.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "components": "<components>"
    },
    "name": "helpcenter_remove_template_components"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
etagNoOptimistic lock: the draft etag from your last read, or the one your last edit returned. When given, the call is refused (stale_draft) if someone changed the draft since — so you never build on a state you have not seen. Omit to apply to the current draft.
site_idNoWhich help center to act on: an id from helpcenter_list_sites. Needed when this connection reaches more than one help center; omit it when it reaches one. Applies to this call only — pass it on every call of a task, and ask the user which help center they mean if their request does not say.
componentsYesThe components to remove. Applied in order, all-or-nothing: if one is refused, nothing from this call is saved and the error names it by position (operation 0 is the first entry).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only flag destructive/idempotent/openWorld; the description adds what the annotations cannot — that removal is draft-scoped, that synced regions propagate the removal to every page, that visitors are unaffected until publish, and how to undo. It also discloses the etag conflict behavior (stale_draft) and points to the guide operation remove_component.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded and dense with useful content, but the publish-gating idea is stated twice ('Nothing reaches visitors until helpcenter_publish_template' and 'Visitors keep seeing it until the draft is published'), and the args/returns block restates schema material. Minor redundancy, no padding otherwise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description still summarizes returns (per-entry outcomes, warnings to relay, draft status with new etag) and covers all the hazards an agent needs: draft vs live, region sync, etag staleness, v2-only restriction, and rollback paths.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds provenance ('ids come from helpcenter_get_template'), the {id, page?} shape, the 1-50 bound, and the meaning of `page` for unsynced regions. The etag explanation largely duplicates the schema text, so it stops short of a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and scope: 'Remove components from the draft, with everything nested inside them.' It is unambiguously separable from siblings that add, move, or update components, and it names the exact artifact it mutates (the v2 design draft, not the live site).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when/when-not guidance: edits the draft, publish only via helpcenter_publish_template and only when the customer asks, v2-only with a stated failure mode (template_migration_required), ids sourced from helpcenter_get_template. It also names alternatives for reversing the action (helpcenter_add_template_components, helpcenter_discard_template_changes).

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.

Resources