Skip to main content
Glama
agenticbits

@agenticbits/claude-plugin

by agenticbits

remove_repo

Remove a repository from the status bar by specifying its label to declutter the interface and manage tracked repositories.

Instructions

Remove a repository from the status bar by its label.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelYesRepo label to remove

Implementation Reference

  • The 'remove_repo' tool handler logic which removes a repository from the configuration based on its label.
    // --- remove_repo ---
    server.tool(
      "remove_repo",
      "Remove a repository from the status bar by its label.",
      { label: z.string().describe("Repo label to remove") },
      async ({ label }) => {
        const config = loadConfig();
        const before = config.repos.length;
        config.repos = config.repos.filter((r) => r.label !== label);
        if (config.repos.length === before) {
          return { content: [{ type: "text", text: `No repo found with label "${label}".` }] };
        }
        saveConfig(config);
        return { content: [{ type: "text", text: `Removed repo: ${label}` }] };
      }
    );

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully establishes this is a UI/status bar operation (not data deletion), but lacks information on side effects, reversibility, or whether the removal persists across sessions.

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?

The single 9-word sentence is perfectly front-loaded with the verb 'Remove' and contains zero redundant information. Every word earns its place by specifying action, resource, location, and key parameter.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one well-documented parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly. However, it could benefit from mentioning the relationship to add_repo for complete contextual awareness.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the 'label' parameter already described as 'Repo label to remove.' The description mentions 'by its label' but adds no additional semantic context (e.g., format constraints, where to find valid labels) beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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 clearly states the specific action (Remove), resource (a repository), and scope (from the status bar) using the label parameter. It effectively distinguishes this from destructive deletion operations by specifying 'status bar,' though it could explicitly contrast with sibling tools like add_repo.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use remove_repo vs set_repo_visibility or toggle_statusbar) or prerequisites (e.g., confirming the repo exists via list_repos first).

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