Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

vibo-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

vibo_remove_song_from_section

Destructive

Remove one or more songs from a section after validating each id and asking for confirmation; missing ids block the change and are listed.

Instructions

Remove one or more songs from a section. Every id is checked against the section first; if any is not there, nothing is sent and the missing ids are listed. 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).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventIdYesEvent id.
songIdsYesSong _ids from vibo_get_section_songs.
sectionIdYesSection id.
confirmTokenNoONLY 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.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.3.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "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.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. Addedv1.5.3
  4. Removedv1.4.3
  5. First observedv1.3.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: atomic all-or-nothing validation with missing ids reported back, a client-dependent confirmation path, and the two-phase preview/confirmToken fallback governed by MCP_CONFIRM_MODE. That is exactly the 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action, then validation semantics, then the confirmation protocol. Every sentence carries information, though the confirmation paragraph is long and could be tightened without losing 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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job covering the failure and confirmation responses (missing ids listed, preview plus confirmToken). It stops short of describing the success response shape, which is the remaining gap for a mutation tool whose return values are otherwise undocumented.

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 the parameters (including songIds sourcing from vibo_get_section_songs and the confirmToken rules) are already fully documented in structured form. The description restates the confirmation flow but adds little parameter-level meaning the schema does not already carry, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Remove one or more songs from a section.' That is unambiguously distinct from the neighboring vibo_add_song_to_section, vibo_move_song, and vibo_delete_section operations, so an agent can pick it 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?

Usage context is clear: it explains that ids are validated against the section first and that a confirmation step always precedes the mutation, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate and what the call flow looks like. It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative (e.g., move vs. remove) or state exclusion conditions.

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