harristeeter-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ht_delete_shopping_list

Destructive

Permanently deletes a Harris Teeter shopping list and all its items after user confirmation. Use it to remove lists that are no longer needed; deletion cannot be undone.

Instructions

Delete a Harris Teeter shopping list and everything on it. Cannot be undone. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

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": {
      "listId": "<listId>"
    },
    "name": "ht_delete_shopping_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`listId`	Yes	listId from ht_list_shopping_lists.
`confirmToken`	No	ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds material context beyond them: that deletion is irreversible, that the list's contents go with it, and the exact two-phase confirmation protocol including token reuse rules. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail a destructive tool needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and consequence before the confirmation mechanics. The MCP_CONFIRM_MODE reference and parenthetical are slightly dense but each clause carries operational meaning.

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 destructive, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers irreversibility, confirmation requirements, and parameter provenance adequately. It stops short of describing the success response shape or whether deletion cascades to related data such as orders, which would fully close the loop.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented with pattern and provenance for listId and strict usage rules for confirmToken. The description's unique contribution is only the flow context for when a token is issued, so this sits at the baseline.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Delete a Harris Teeter shopping list") and adds scope ("and everything on it"), which distinguishes it from item-level removal siblings like ht_remove_from_shopping_list. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

The description clearly explains when the confirmation path applies (client supports a prompt vs. the two-step confirmToken fallback) and how to proceed in each case. It does not name alternatives such as removing individual items instead of deleting the list, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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