plaid_item_removeRemoves a Plaid item by invalidating its access token and clearing it from the vault, stopping billing in production.
Calls /item/remove, invalidating the access_token, and forgets it in the vault. In production this stops billing for the Item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | item_id from plaid_sandbox_item_create (or a raw access_token you already hold) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It is transparent about the destructive side effects: invalidating the access_token, forgetting the item in the vault, and stopping billing in production. It does not explicitly flag irreversibility or mention auth requirements, but the key destructive behavior is clearly exposed.
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 two concise sentences that front-load the core action and then add the important operational consequence. There is no filler or repetition of the title.
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?
For a simple one-parameter removal tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation, the endpoint, the side effects on access tokens and vault storage, and the production billing impact. It could add a note on irreversibility or response behavior, but the essential information is present.
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?
The schema already covers the single parameter item_id with a helpful description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, which fits the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 the specific endpoint (/item/remove), the resource (Item), and the concrete effects: invalidating the access_token, forgetting it in the vault, and stopping billing in production. This clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like plaid_item_get and from sandbox reset tools.
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 gives useful context by noting that in production this stops billing, which implies the removal scenario. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as plaid_sandbox_reset_login for a non-destructive reset, nor does it list exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.