Skip to main content
Glama
danielrosehill

Daniel Rosehill's MCP Installer

uninstall_mcp

Remove MCP servers from client configurations like Claude Code, Cursor, or VS Code to manage your development environment.

Instructions

Remove an MCP from a client configuration.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mcp_idYesMCP identifier to remove
clientNoClient to remove fromclaude-code

Implementation Reference

  • Handler case within the CallToolRequestHandler that executes the uninstall_mcp tool logic by invoking removeMcpConfig and returning the result.
    case 'uninstall_mcp': {
      const mcpId = args?.mcp_id as string;
      const client = (args?.client as ClientType) || 'claude-code';
    
      const removed = removeMcpConfig(client, mcpId);
    
      return {
        content: [{
          type: 'text',
          text: JSON.stringify({
            status: removed ? 'success' : 'not_found',
            mcp_id: mcpId,
            client,
            message: removed
              ? `Removed '${mcpId}' from ${client}`
              : `MCP '${mcpId}' was not installed in ${client}`
          }, null, 2)
        }]
      };
    }
  • Tool definition including name, description, and input schema for the uninstall_mcp tool, used for registration and validation.
    {
      name: 'uninstall_mcp',
      description: 'Remove an MCP from a client configuration.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          mcp_id: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'MCP identifier to remove'
          },
          client: {
            type: 'string',
            enum: ['claude-code', 'cursor', 'vscode'],
            description: 'Client to remove from',
            default: 'claude-code'
          }
        },
        required: ['mcp_id']
      }
    },
  • Core helper function that reads the client settings, removes the specified MCP configuration if present, writes the updated settings, and returns success status.
    export function removeMcpConfig(client: ClientType, mcpId: string): boolean {
      const settings = readClientSettings(client);
    
      if (!settings.mcpServers || !(mcpId in settings.mcpServers)) {
        return false;
      }
    
      delete settings.mcpServers[mcpId];
      writeClientSettings(client, settings);
      return true;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a removal operation, implying mutation/destructive action, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, whether the removal is reversible, what happens to the client configuration, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what happens after removal, potential side effects, error conditions, or return values. For a destructive operation, more context about behavior and outcomes is needed.

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 schema already documents both parameters (mcp_id, client) with descriptions and enum values. The description doesn't add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what constitutes a valid MCP identifier or the implications of choosing different clients. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and target resource ('an MCP from a client configuration'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'list_installed' or 'sync_registry', but the removal action is distinct enough from listing/installation operations.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., MCP must be installed first), when-not-to-use scenarios, or relationships to sibling tools like 'list_installed' (to check what's installed) or 'install_mcp' (the inverse operation).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/danielrosehill/My-MCP-Installer'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server