remove_storeDeregister a skill store registration while preserving the underlying data. Use this to stop managing or accessing a store without deleting its backend.
Remove a registration without deleting backend data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one key behavioral trait—that backend data is preserved—but omits other details like idempotency, reversibility, or error behavior. This partial transparency earns a mid-range score.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It is efficient but arguably too sparse, sacrificing important detail for brevity.
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?
While the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description leaves critical gaps: it does not explain the parameter's role or provide usage context. An agent would need to infer the purpose of 'name' and when to invoke this tool, making the definition incomplete.
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?
The schema has one parameter 'name' with no description, and the tool description does not explain what 'name' refers to (presumably the store name). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate and leaves the parameter's meaning entirely ambiguous.
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?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('a registration'), and the qualifier 'without deleting backend data' adds precision, distinguishing it from a hypothetical hard-delete. Among siblings like add_store and update_store, the removal purpose is unambiguous.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The usage is only implied from the purpose, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.