tiendanube_carts_delete_line_itemRemoves a specific line item from an active Tiendanube cart using the cart ID and line item ID, so you can update cart contents before checkout.
Remove one line item from an active cart. HTTP: DELETE /carts/{id}/line-items/{line_item_id} Required scope: write_orders API version: 2025-03
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Cart ID | |
| line_item_id | Yes | Line item ID (64-bit; pass as string) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the required scope "write_orders" and the API version, which the agent needs to know before attempting the call and cannot get from annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four short lines with the action front-loaded, followed by endpoint, scope and version metadata. Nothing is padded, though the HTTP verb/path line largely restates the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive two-parameter mutation, the description covers the endpoint, scope and version, which is adequate given annotations handle the safety profile and both params are fully documented. It omits what the response contains or whether the cart total is recalculated, leaving a small but real gap for a write operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (cart id, line_item_id) are already documented, including the 64-bit/pass-as-string caveat. The description's HTTP path echoes the parameters without adding format or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Remove one line item from an active cart" gives a specific verb (remove) and resource (line item within a cart), distinguishing it from carts_get and carts_delete_coupon. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling applies to a different granularity of removal, but the operation is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase "from an active cart" implies a precondition (the cart must be active), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as emptying the whole cart. An agent gets no help choosing between this and other cart mutation siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.