Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
margins-mcp

margins-mcp

by cflorczyk9
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

margins_reset_proposals

Destructive

Clear pending proposals from the proposed/ folder. Use after failed sessions or to start fresh. Returns count of files to delete; pass confirm=true to execute.

Instructions

Clear all pending proposals from proposed/. Use when proposals have accumulated from failed Claude sessions, or when the user wants a clean slate. Returns the number of files that would be deleted. Requires confirm=true to actually delete — without confirm, returns a dry-run list. Vault files are never touched; only files under proposed/.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "margins_reset_proposals"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoPass true to actually delete the pending proposals. Default false returns a dry-run preview.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.15.3

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations mark it as destructive, but description adds critical detail: never touches vault files, only proposed/. Also explains dry-run behavior with confirm parameter. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences, each essential. First sentence states action, second gives usage context, third explains confirmation behavior and safety.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given single parameter and no output schema, description fully covers purpose, usage cues, parameter behavior, and safety scope. Agent can correctly decide and invoke.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers both parameter semantics already, but description adds behavioral context for confirm: dry-run vs actual deletion. Reinforces and clarifies beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool clears pending proposals from a specific directory. It uses a specific verb 'Clear' and resource 'pending proposals from proposed/', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_proposals or resolve_proposal.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says when to use: after failed Claude sessions or when wanting a clean slate. Implicitly excludes use cases where proposals should be preserved. Does not explicitly list alternatives but context is clear.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools