Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
remus-mcp

remus-mcp

by christianmz565
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

trace_remove

Removes a trace between a source and target object in a REMUS Jet project, using project ID and object IDs to identify the connection.

Instructions

Remove trace

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "source_oid": "<source_oid>",
      "target_oid": "<target_oid>"
    },
    "name": "trace_remove"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
source_oidYes
target_oidYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and 'Remove trace' only signals that the operation is destructive. It does not disclose whether removal is permanent, whether it affects other data, what happens if the trace does not exist, or any permission requirements.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is under-specified rather than concise. Two words provide no useful structure or front-loaded detail beyond the tool name.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given three required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a destructive action, the description is far too thin. An agent lacks enough information to invoke the tool correctly or anticipate its effects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any parameter. While project_id, source_oid, and target_oid are somewhat self-explanatory, there is no clarification of what an OID is, how source and target are ordered, or what constitutes a valid trace.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Remove trace' essentially restates the tool name in a different word order, adding no definition of what a trace is or what removing it entails. It is a verb+noun but provides no distinguishing detail against sibling tools like trace_add or get_traces.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trace_add or get_traces. The context in which removal is appropriate, and any prerequisites or caveats, are entirely absent.

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