remove_zoomPROJECT-SCOPED: this call acts only on the explicit project_id and returns the project identity with its result. Remove one zoom by its id (see get_edl).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | Required immutable scope for this call. Copy the id from list_projects/open_project/project_state; the active-project pointer is never used to guess. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'Remove' which is a destructive operation, but the annotations declare destructiveHint: false. This is a direct contradiction. While the description adds that it returns the project identity, the contradiction is a serious transparency failure, so the score is 1 and annotation_contradiction is true.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the critical project-scoping note. It is concise and efficient, though the 'see get_edl' reference is slightly cryptic but still acceptable.
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?
The description mentions the return value (project identity with result) and project scoping, but the contradiction with destructiveHint undermines its completeness. It also lacks details on error handling or edge cases, making it insufficient for a mutation tool with no output schema.
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 50% (only project_id has a description). The description adds value by pointing to get_edl for the id and clarifying that project_id is an explicit immutable scope. However, it does not fully compensate for the missing id parameter description, so it is adequate but not outstanding.
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 states a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('one zoom by its id'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_zoom_path. It also clarifies the project-scoped behavior. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 provides a pointer to get_edl for obtaining the id, implying when to use this tool (after looking up the zoom). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with alternatives like remove_zoom_path, so usage guidance is partial.
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.