Skip to main content
Glama

LMS 에서 사라진 강의자료 삭제

delete_materials
Destructive

Deletes locally only course materials reported as removed from LMS after re-sync and explicit user approval; preserves modified files and paths outside storage.

Instructions

pull_materials 가 removed 로 보고하는 파일(LMS 에서 사라진 강의자료)만 로컬에서 지운다. 실행할 때 다시 동기화해 대상을 정하고, 사용자가 클라이언트 확인 창에서 직접 승인해야 지운다. 받은 뒤 수정된 파일·링크·저장 폴더 밖 경로는 지우지 않는다. 확인 창이 없는 클라이언트면 목록과 confirmToken 을 돌려준다 — 사용자에게 목록을 보여주고 동의를 받은 뒤에만 그 토큰으로 다시 호출한다.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "delete_materials"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathsNopull_materials removed 의 path (또는 저장 위치 기준 상대 경로). 생략하면 보고된 파일 전부
courseNo과목명 일부 (대소문자 무시). 생략하면 수강 과목 전부
confirmTokenNo확인 창을 띄울 수 없는 클라이언트에서 첫 호출이 돌려준 일회용 확인 토큰. 사용자에게 목록을 보여주고 동의를 받은 뒤에만 넣는다

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.5
    • changedInput schema / properties / paths / description
      Previous value: -"sync_materials removed 의 path (또는 저장 위치 기준 상대 경로). 생략하면 보고된 파일 전부"New value: +"pull_materials removed 의 path (또는 저장 위치 기준 상대 경로). 생략하면 보고된 파일 전부"
  2. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, but the description adds critical context beyond them: targets are re-synced at execution time rather than taken from stale data, deletion requires interactive user approval, and clients without a dialog get a list plus confirmToken that must be re-submitted only after consent. That is substantive disclosure of a two-phase protocol.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, all load-bearing, with the destructive scope constraint front-loaded before the approval mechanics. Slightly dense but no filler or repetition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive, open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers the target selection, the safety guardrails, and what the fallback call returns (list plus confirmToken). An agent has everything needed to invoke it safely.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema text already explains paths, course, and the confirmToken one-time-use rule in nearly the same words. The description reinforces the token round-trip but adds little semantic detail the schema does not already carry, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (locally delete files that pull_materials reports as removed) and explicitly narrows the scope to that subset, distinguishing it from the sibling pull_materials. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states the precondition (files pull_materials reports as removed), the exclusions (modified files, links, paths outside the storage folder are never deleted), and the required user approval flow, including the fallback protocol when no confirmation dialog exists.

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