Skip to main content
Glama
ProjectMakersDE

horizOn MCP Server

Official
by ProjectMakersDE
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Delete Shared Object

horizon_delete_shared_object
DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a shared object at its exact reviewed revision and refunds its stored charge, supporting safe owner cleanup after access.

Instructions

Deletes one exact-revision object and refunds its stored charge. Use when: explicit world-map/async-PvP object access after reading horizon://docs/shared-objects. Not for: background polling, automatic page traversal, interpreting opaque bytes or using this as a combat validator. Requires: userId and the player's session: sign in with horizon_signin_email or horizon_signin_anonymous and pass its accessToken as sessionToken. Side effects: Destructive; owner cleanup remains possible after group leave/archive. Owner usage revision remains to prevent creation ABA. One HTTP attempt. Returns: {objectId,deleted,usage,pollAfterSeconds,serverTime}; repeated completed delete is OBJECT_NOT_FOUND. Errors: 409 revision/state/permission conflict or lost response: explicitly reread owned objects/usage and reconcile original intent, never automatically retry with newer revisions or a replacement ID. 404 does not distinguish missing/private/expired data. 422 retains existing data on quota/archive failure. 401 means the session is missing or expired: sign in again and retry with the new accessToken. 403 for a session means the token belongs to another user: pass the userId that signed in. Needs HORIZON_API_KEY. Every failure returns an error result (isError) with the HTTP status and body: a 401 that horizon_test_connection also returns means HORIZON_API_KEY is wrong, 429 means the account's per-minute rate limit was reached (wait a minute, then retry).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userIdYesActive player UUID matching the authenticated session and project
objectIdYesOriginal server-generated object UUID from the reviewed snapshot
collectionYesPermanent collection or configured field key, lowercase ASCII
sessionTokenYesPlayer accessToken, sent only as Bearer
expectedRevisionYesOriginal reviewed revision; never substitute a newer revision after an uncertain write

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.9.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructive/idempotent annotations, the description adds substantial context: owner cleanup surviving group leave/archive, the ABA-prevention rationale for retaining usage revision, the single-HTTP-attempt guarantee, the return shape, and detailed per-status error semantics (409/404/422/401/403) plus rate-limit and API-key failure guidance. This is precisely the value-add the dimension asks for.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with purpose, then use/not-for, then side effects and errors; each block serves a distinct purpose. It is dense and the error paragraph is long, but nearly every sentence carries actionable information, so it avoids being padded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive, revision-exact mutation with no output schema, the definition covers when to use it, auth prerequisites, side effects, return shape, and full error/reconciliation behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and recover from failures without guessing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: sessionToken must come from horizon_signin_email/anonymous accessToken, userId must be the player that signed in, and expectedRevision must never be swapped for a newer revision after an uncertain write. These are operational semantics not present in the schema text.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Deletes one exact-revision object and refunds its stored charge') with a clear scope constraint (exact-revision, charge refund). It is distinguishable from update/get/create siblings by the revision-exact delete semantics, though it never names an alternative sibling tool explicitly, keeping it below a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It supplies an explicit 'Use when' condition (explicit world-map/async-PvP object access after reading the docs) and a 'Not for' exclusion list (background polling, page traversal, opaque byte interpretation, combat validation). This tells an agent both when to pick this tool and when to avoid it, which is exactly the guidance dimension this rubric rewards.

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