Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-remnawave

mcp-remnawave

by Nurullaev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

hwid_device_delete

Delete a specific hardware ID from a user account to revoke device access. Provide the user ID and hardware ID to remove the device record.

Instructions

Delete a specific HWID device (identified by user ID + hardware ID)

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": {
      "userId": "<userId>",
      "hwid": "<hwid>"
    },
    "name": "hwid_device_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hwidYesHardware ID to delete
userIdYesUser numeric ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It clearly marks the destructive action 'Delete' and the composite identifier, but does not mention permanence, required permissions, error handling for nonexistent devices, or side effects. This leaves meaningful behavioral gaps for an agent.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and the identifying key. No filler or redundant repetition, achieving an ideal size for this simple operation.

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?

For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits critical context: what the response looks like, whether the delete is irrevocable, and behavior when the device does not exist. While the two required parameters are clear, the operational consequences are left unknown for a tool that performs deletion.

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?

The schema already fully describes both parameters (100% coverage) with 'Hardware ID to delete' and 'User numeric ID'. The description adds the composite-key framing but no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Delete'), a clear resource ('HWID device'), and precisely defines the identifier as 'user ID + hardware ID'. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like hwid_device_create and hwid_devices_delete_all.

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?

The description offers no direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hwid_devices_delete_all. 'Specific' only implies single-device deletion; there is no explicit when-to-use, exclusions, or naming of related tools.

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