Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

zola-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

remove_faq

Destructive

Deletes an FAQ from your Zola public website after asking you to confirm, preventing accidental removal.

Instructions

Remove an FAQ from the public website. 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
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.
faq_entity_idYesFAQ entity ID from list_faqs

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.4
    • 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. First observedv1.4.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the confirmation protocol, that phase 1 returns a preview plus confirmToken, that only a repeat call with that token proceeds, and points to MCP_CONFIRM_MODE. This is exactly the extra behavioral context 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the confirmation mechanics second. No filler; every clause carries operational information.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the critical confirmation protocol, so an agent knows how to complete the call safely. It omits whether deletion is reversible and whether the FAQ is hard-deleted or archived, which are minor gaps given the annotations.

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% and the confirmToken field already documents when it may be passed and when it must not be. The description references the token flow but adds no format, range or constraint detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Remove an FAQ") plus scope ("from the public website"), which is unambiguous against the sibling add_faq, update_faq and list_faqs. An agent can immediately tell this is the deletion operation without opening any schema.

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?

The description gives strong guidance on HOW to invoke the tool (confirm prompt, two-step fallback with confirmToken) but says nothing about WHEN to choose it over alternatives such as update_faq or set_page_hidden, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied by the destructive verb rather than stated.

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