Remove a file or folder from FXServer resources safely, with a backup created before deletion. Use a relative path to clean up old scripts or assets.
Remove um arquivo ou pasta de recurso de forma segura, criando backup prévio antes da remoção.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Caminho relativo a ser excluído (ex: "resources/[scripts]/antigo_script") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious safety trait: a backup is created before removal. However, it omits whether the deletion is reversible, where the backup lives, required permissions, and whether restoring is possible — significant gaps for a destructive operation.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that packs verb, target, and the key safeguard with no wasted words. Slightly terse for a destructive tool, but structurally efficient.
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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the what and the backup safeguard but leaves the return value (e.g., backup path), reversibility, and failure behavior unexplained. Adequate but incomplete for the risk level involved.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the 'path' parameter and its example are already fully documented in the schema. The description notes that both files and folders can be targeted, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.
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 a specific verb (remove/delete) and resource (a file or resource folder), clearly distinguishing it from read-oriented siblings like fx_read_file and fx_list_resources. It does not, however, name any sibling or clarify the boundary against fx_resource_action or fx_write_file.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fx_write_file (overwrite) or fx_resource_action (resource lifecycle operations). The only implied usage is 'you want to delete something', with no preconditions or exclusions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.