Komers Sites

Remove an add-on

remove_addon

Destructive

Turn off an add-on from the next renewal (no refund for the current period).

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "addon": "<addon>"
    },
    "name": "remove_addon"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	Yes	Site slug (e.g. "kopitiam-muar") or id
`addon`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the effect is deferred to the next renewal and no refund is issued for the current period. It does not say whether the add-on remains usable until then or whether the change can be undone by re-adding it.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted wording. The parenthetical billing caveat is placed exactly where an agent needs it to set expectations.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter tool with destructive annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the critical billing and timing semantics. It stops short of clarifying the add-on's state between the call and the next renewal, but is otherwise sufficient.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 50% — 'site' is documented in the schema while the 'addon' enum is not. The description adds no information about either parameter, so the schema carries essentially all parameter meaning and the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb ('Turn off') and resource ('an add-on'), making the operation clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling add_addon or list_addons, but the verb/resource pairing is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when cancelling an add-on. There is no explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., checking list_addons first) or on what to do if the add-on isn't currently active.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Komers Sites tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?