Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Moatless

by store.moatless
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Remove a release asset

remove_release_asset
DestructiveIdempotent

Removes an asset and its file: one gone from its GitHub release, or one its seller uploaded and no longer wants buyers to have.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "context": "<context>"
    },
    "name": "remove_release_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
contextYesExplain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. Never include personal data, such as names, email addresses or message text; refer to people by role, such as "the user" or "a buyer".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. Never include personal data, such as names, email addresses or message text; refer to people by role, such as \"the user\" or \"a buyer\".",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "context"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the key safety profile is known. The description adds real context beyond that: the underlying file is deleted along with the asset record, and the effect differs for release assets versus seller-uploaded assets. It still omits permission requirements and whether removal from a GitHub release leaves the release intact.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and its destructive scope ("and its file"). No filler, no repetition of the title, and the two scenarios are stated efficiently.

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 destructive, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed and for whom, which is the critical information. Missing pieces are authorization requirements and any recovery or irreversibility note, which are useful but secondary.

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%: the context parameter is fully documented in the schema, while id has no description anywhere. The description implies the id refers to an asset, but adds no format, scope, or validation meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Removes an asset and its file") and clarifies the two ownership contexts: a GitHub release asset or a seller-uploaded asset. It is not tautological, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling, relying on the name to do that work.

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 through the two scenarios (removing from a GitHub release, or withdrawing a seller asset from buyers). There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative for related operations.

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

All Moatless toolsInspect
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