ah_clear_shopping_listClear every item from your Albert Heijn shopping list in one action. This is irreversible, so you must pass confirm="yes" to proceed.
Remove ALL items from the Albert Heijn shopping list. Irreversible — requires confirm="yes".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | Must be "yes" to confirm |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new information: the operation is irreversible and a confirm="yes" gate is mandatory. It stops short of describing what the response looks like after the clear.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive scope front-loaded and the irreversibility/confirmation constraint immediately after it.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers scope, irreversibility and the confirmation gate. Only the post-clear state (e.g. whether the list is emptied vs deleted) is left unstated.
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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already states 'Must be "yes" to confirm', and the description merely restates the same constraint without adding format or edge-case detail. 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?
States a specific verb (Remove) and resource (Albert Heijn shopping list) with an explicit scope quantifier (ALL items), which cleanly separates it from the sibling ah_remove_from_shopping_list that handles individual items.
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?
Usage is implied by the scope (use when the whole list should be emptied) and the confirm="yes" prerequisite gives a concrete condition, but no alternative is named and no when-not guidance is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.