Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

remove_task

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a task at a given 0-based index from a UStateTree state to update task sequences. Handles out-of-range indexes safely.

Instructions

Remove a task (by index) from a state. Idempotent at the index-out-of-range boundary.

Returns: { tree_path, state_name, task_index, removed, remaining, saved }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tree_pathYesAsset path to the UStateTree.
state_nameYesName of the state.
task_indexYes0-based index into the state's Tasks array.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "tree_path",
-  "task_index"
-]New value: +[
+  "tree_path",
+  "state_name",
+  "task_index"
+]
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false), but the description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: out-of-range indices are handled idempotently rather than erroring, and it discloses the exact return shape. It does not mention required permissions or how the write is persisted.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the idempotency caveat and return contract. No wasted prose.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully specifies the return object, and combined with the annotations an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. It could add rollback/save semantics and any prerequisites, but the essentials are present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents tree_path, state_name, and task_index. The description adds only the 'by index' framing for task_index, which is already implied by the schema's '0-based index' note, so 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?

States a specific verb (Remove) and resource (a task from a state) and even specifies the identification method ('by index'). It is clear within the state-tree tool family, though it does not name a sibling (e.g. remove_state, remove_transition) to differentiate itself.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to alternatives among the many remove_* / task siblings. Usage is only inferable from the verb and object.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools