Delete an item from a store using its store ID and item ID to remove or unlist it from the storefront.
Remove or unlist an item from your store.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | Item ID to delete | |
| store_id | Yes | Store ID or slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints that the item may be removed OR merely unlisted, but never clarifies which occurs, whether the action is reversible, whether it requires store ownership, or what happens to the item's orders/inventory records. For a destructive mutation with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is arguably under-informative rather than over-long, so brevity is not the problem.
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?
A destructive two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema needs to explain the permanence/reversibility of the operation and any auth requirements; the description covers neither. The one useful hint it gives ('or unlist') is left unresolved.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both store_id and item_id are already documented in the schema; the description adds no format, slug, or ID-syntax detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 or unlist') and resource ('an item from your store'), which distinguishes it from add_store_item and update_store_item in the sibling list. The hedge 'or unlist' leaves the exact operation ambiguous, but the target object 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?
No guidance on when to use this versus update_store_item (which could also unlist) or add_store_item, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.