Daily Tutor MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

remove_material

Deletes a stored material by ID so learners can remove outdated or unwanted study resources from their Daily Tutor library.

Instructions

Delete a stored material.

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": {
      "material_id": "<material_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_material"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`user_id`	No		default
`material_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Delete" does signal a destructive mutation, but the description says nothing about permanence, whether the delete cascades to sessions/results, what permissions or ownership (user_id) are involved, or how failures behave.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, but its brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. It earns its place as far as it goes but leaves critical destructive-operation context unstated.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a destructive tool with no annotations and zero schema coverage on both parameters, the description should do considerably more. An agent lacks the information needed to call this safely and correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does not: it never explains that the required material_id identifies the target, nor what the user_id parameter with its "default" value controls. Only a loose association between "material" and material_id exists.

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?

"Delete a stored material" names a specific verb and resource, which is enough to distinguish it from the add_material and list_materials siblings by name alone. It stops short of citing those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 guidance on when to use this versus add_material or list_materials, no prerequisite checks (e.g., confirming the material exists), and no warning about irreversibility. The agent must infer everything about appropriate invocation context.

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