harristeeter-mcp

by chrischall

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

ht_remove_from_cart

Idempotent

Remove selected Harris Teeter cart items by UPC, up to 50 per call; re-add removed items later using ht_add_to_cart.

Instructions

Remove items from the Harris Teeter cart by UPC. Re-add with ht_add_to_cart.

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": {
      "upcs": "<upcs>"
    },
    "name": "ht_remove_from_cart"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`upcs`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that on the behavior that actually matters here: whether removal deletes the whole line or decrements quantity, and whether an unknown UPC errors or is silently ignored.

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?

Two short sentences with the operation and its inverse front-loaded, and no filler. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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

Completeness3/5

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

This is a low-complexity single-parameter mutation and the annotations cover its safety profile, so the definition is close to adequate. It is still thin on the two things an agent would want before calling: quantity semantics of a removal and what the tool returns given there is no output schema.

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?

With reported schema description coverage of 0%, the description must carry more weight, and it does identify the keying value as a UPC and implies multiple items via "items". It does not mention the 1-50 item limit or that UPCs originate from ht_search_products, both of which live only in the raw schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Remove items from the Harris Teeter cart") plus the keying dimension ("by UPC"), which lets an agent distinguish it from cart-reading tools. It stops short of explicitly separating it from ht_remove_from_shopping_list or ht_update_cart_item, though the word "cart" does most of that work.

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?

"Re-add with ht_add_to_cart" gives one concrete follow-up path for undoing a removal, which is real guidance. There are no stated preconditions (cart must exist, item must be present) and no discussion of when to prefer ht_update_cart_item over removal.

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