Ploi.io MCP Server

Forget Ploi database

ploi_forget_database

Destructive

Remove a database from Ploi.io management records while keeping it intact on the server. Confirm deletion from records only.

Instructions

Remove a database from Ploi records without deleting it from the server.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "server_id": "<server_id>",
      "database_id": "<database_id>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "ploi_forget_database"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	Yes	Must be true to confirm this destructive operation.
`server_id`	Yes	Ploi server ID.
`database_id`	Yes	Ploi database ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already indicate destructive hint, but the description adds critical behavioral context: the database is not deleted from the server. This goes beyond what annotations provide, making agent behavior more predictable.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the key action and nuance, making it maximally efficient.

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?

For a simple action with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and key exception (no server deletion). It does not mention prerequisites or error conditions, but given the low complexity and annotation coverage, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including the confirm parameter. The tool description does not add any parameter-level details, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (remove) and resource (database), and crucially distinguishes it from a potentially destructive delete by specifying 'without deleting it from the server.' This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the use case (removing Ploi records while keeping server data) but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. Given the sibling set includes only one other database tool (ploi_duplicate_database), the guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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