Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

zola-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

remove_registry_item

Destructive

Remove a registry item from the wedding registry after user confirmation. Preview first, then confirm deletion with a token.

Instructions

Remove an item from the registry guests shop from. 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

TableJSON 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.
collection_item_idYesItem ID (item_id) from get_registry

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.4
    • addedInput schema / properties / collection_item_id / description
      Added value: +"Item ID (item_id) from get_registry"
    • 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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes beyond that by disclosing the confirmation-first behavior, including the two-step fallback with preview and confirmToken. This adds behavioral detail (how the tool interacts with the user and the MCP confirmation mode) that is not available from annotations alone. No contradiction exists.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is efficient, but it is a long run-on with awkward phrasing ('registry guests shop from'). It front-loads the core action (Remove an item) and then adds confirmation details, but the structure could be clearer and more polished. It is reasonably concise but not a model of clarity.

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?

The tool is destructive and has a confirmation flow, and the description covers the flow well. However, it does not mention what the final success response looks like, nor any side effects or irreversibility beyond the destructiveHint. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left without information on the return structure of a successful call. The confirmation behavior is well covered, but completeness for a destructive tool could be better.

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 both parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description's mention of confirmToken and the confirmation flow echoes the schema but does not add new information beyond what is already in the schema's parameter descriptions. The main description references MCP_CONFIRM_MODE, which is not explained, but overall the schema carries the semantic load adequately.

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 states a clear action ('Remove an item') and identifies the resource (registry). Despite awkward grammar ('guests shop from'), the verb and object are unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_registry_item and update_registry_item by the remove action.

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (to remove a registry item) and spends significant text explaining the confirmation flow, which is a usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use add_registry_item to add, update_registry_item to modify'). The confirmation guidance is useful but selection context is only implied.

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