Remove one copy of a release from your Discogs collection by release and instance IDs. Set dry_run=false and confirm=true to proceed; get instance IDs via find_in_collection.
Remove one copy (instance) of a release from the collection. Destructive: needs dry_run=false AND confirm=true. Get instance ids from find_in_collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| release_id | Yes | ||
| instance_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further by disclosing the granularity of destruction (one instance, not all copies) and the exact two-flag gate (dry_run=false AND confirm=true) that is not derivable from the schema defaults. It stops short of covering reversibility or permission requirements.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive operation and its scope, followed immediately by the safety precondition and the discovery pointer. No filler.
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 mutation with no output schema and zero schema-level parameter documentation, the description carries the critical safety information an agent needs to avoid accidental deletion. Minor gaps remain around failure behavior when a release has multiple copies and what the call returns, but the essentials are present.
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 0% for 4 parameters. The description explains the roles of confirm and dry_run and points to find_in_collection for instance_id, but release_id's identity and relationship to the instance are left implicit, so compensation for the coverage gap is partial.
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?
States a precise verb (remove) plus resource (a release from the collection) and narrows the scope to 'one copy (instance)', which is exactly the distinction an agent needs against siblings like move_collection_item or add_to_collection. There is no ambiguity about what the call does.
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 description gives the operative precondition (dry_run=false AND confirm=true) and routes the agent to find_in_collection to obtain instance ids, which is real when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as remove_from_wantlist or delete_folder, so it stops short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.