modularsynth-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Remove module

remove_module

Destructive

Removes a module and its connected cables from the modular synth rack, cleaning up patch routing when a component is no longer needed.

Instructions

Remove a module and its cables from the rack.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_module"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.1Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for disclosing the cascade effect — cables are removed too — which the annotations do not convey. It does not state irreversibility or whether undo can reverse it.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. Every clause (module removal plus cable removal) carries meaning.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action and the cascade side effect. It omits what the id identifies, error behavior for a nonexistent module, and whether the operation is undoable — gaps that matter for a destructive tool.

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?

The single required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it. An agent must guess whether 'id' is the module id, a slot id, or a name.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a module') and adds scope ('and its cables from the rack'). It is implicitly distinguishable from the sibling add_module, but never names or contrasts any sibling explicitly.

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 indication of when to use this versus undo, disconnect, or add_module, and no prerequisites or preconditions (e.g., whether the module must be unconnected first). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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