Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

zola-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

remove_poi

Destructive

Remove a point-of-interest from your Zola Things-to-Do page. Confirmation is required before deletion.

Instructions

Remove a point-of-interest from the public Things-to-Do page. 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.
poi_entity_idYesPOI ID from list_pois

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields 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"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / poi_entity_id / description
      Added value: +"POI ID from list_pois"
  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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint and openWorldHint; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the mandatory confirmation protocol, the two-phase preview/confirmToken fallback, and the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE dependency. This is precisely the behavioral context an agent needs to avoid making an unconfirmed destructive call.

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, front-loaded with the action and target, then the confirmation mechanics. No filler, and every 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 tool with no output schema, the confirmation flow is the critical missing piece and it is covered thoroughly. The only gap is that the description never states the consequence of the operation (irreversibility / loss of the public page listing) or failure behavior on a bad or expired token.

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 parameter already documents its full semantics (only after preview, never invented, never reused, ignored under elicitation). The description adds little beyond what the schema and the mention of MCP_CONFIRM_MODE provide, 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 (remove), resource (point-of-interest), and scope (the public Things-to-Do page), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling removers like remove_faq, remove_vendor, and remove_travel_item. An agent knows exactly what this tool affects.

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?

It gives explicit procedural guidance for the confirmation flow (prompt first where supported; otherwise preview + confirmToken on a repeat call), which is the key thing an agent must get right. It does not, however, mention alternatives such as update_poi for merely hiding a POI instead of removing it, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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