qubic-mcp

remove_wallet

Remove a saved wallet by name to clear local references without affecting the blockchain address. Keeps your Qubic wallet list up to date.

Instructions

Remove a saved wallet by name. This only removes the local reference — it does not affect the actual blockchain address in any way.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "remove_wallet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	The name of the wallet to remove

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.2Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description clearly discloses a crucial behavioral trait: it only removes the local reference and does not affect the blockchain address. This is particularly important for a deletion operation, though it does not mention potential errors or side effects like wallet-not-found behavior.

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 two sentences long, directly states the action and the key caveat, and contains no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 simple tool with one parameter, the description adequately covers purpose and the most important behavioral nuance. It lacks details about return values or error handling, but since there is no output schema and the operation is straightforward, this is a minor gap.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the single parameter ('name' with 'The name of the wallet to remove'), and the description reinforces this with 'by name'. With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no extra parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('a saved wallet by name'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'save_wallet' and 'list_wallets' by focusing on removal.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name alternatives or provide context for specific scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name.

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