minimal-mcp

remove_todo

Destructive

Permanently delete a todo after asking the user to confirm. Use when a user requests to delete or remove a task.

Instructions

Permanently delete a todo, after asking the user to confirm.

Use when the user asks to delete or remove a task.

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": {
      "todo_id": "<todo_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_todo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`todo_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: 'Permanently delete' clarifies irreversibility, and 'after asking the user to confirm' explains the confirmation workflow. These details go beyond the simple destructive flag.

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, with the core action in the first sentence and the usage context in the second. No redundant information; everything earns its place.

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 delete tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the action, the confirmation requirement, and the usage trigger. It omits details about the parameter or return values, but the output schema likely handles returns. The main gap is parameter clarity, which is scored separately.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema provides only a type for todo_id (integer) with no description, and the description does not mention this parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning and format unspecified.

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 clearly states the action ('Permanently delete'), the resource ('a todo'), and key behavior ('after asking the user to confirm'). It distinguishes itself from siblings (add_todo, complete_todo) by focusing on deletion.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides an explicit usage trigger: 'Use when the user asks to delete or remove a task.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server