Skip to main content
Glama

w3_can_blob_rm

Remove a blob from the MCP-IPFS server store using its base58btc encoded multihash to efficiently manage storage and data operations.

Instructions

Removes a blob from the store by its base58btc encoded multihash.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
multihashYesBase58btc encoded multihash of the blob to remove.

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for 'w3_can_blob_rm' that validates input arguments using Zod schema, executes the w3 CLI command 'can blob rm <multihash>', and returns a structured response with success message and stdout.
    const handleW3CanBlobRm: ToolHandler = async (args) => {
      const parsed = Schemas.W3CanBlobRmArgsSchema.safeParse(args);
      if (!parsed.success)
        throw new Error(
          `Invalid arguments for w3_can_blob_rm: ${parsed.error.message}`
        );
      const { multihash } = parsed.data;
      const { stdout } = await runW3Command(`can blob rm ${multihash}`);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify({
              message: `Blob ${multihash} removed successfully.`,
              output: stdout.trim(),
            }),
          },
        ],
      };
    };
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the w3_can_blob_rm tool: requires a 'multihash' string (Base58btc encoded multihash of the blob). Includes description for MCP tool metadata.
    export const W3CanBlobRmArgsSchema = z
      .object({
        multihash: z
          .string()
          .describe("Base58btc encoded multihash of the blob to remove."),
      })
      .describe(
        "Removes a blob from the store by its base58btc encoded multihash."
      );
  • Registration of the 'w3_can_blob_rm' tool in the toolHandlers map, which is used by the MCP server to route CallTool requests to the appropriate handler.
    w3_can_blob_rm: handleW3CanBlobRm,
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether removal is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting linked data), or provides confirmation feedback. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and key identifier.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context like safety warnings, return values, error conditions, or dependencies, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'multihash' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond restating the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Removes') and resource ('a blob from the store'), specifying it's identified by a 'base58btc encoded multihash'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'w3_can_blob_add' (add) and 'w3_can_blob_ls' (list), but doesn't explicitly contrast with general deletion tools like 'w3_rm'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing blob), exclusions, or compare to similar tools like 'w3_can_store_rm' or 'w3_rm', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/alexbakers/mcp-ipfs'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server