Delete a stored marketplace cabinet by name. If the removed cabinet was active, another one automatically takes over as active.
Delete a stored cabinet. If it was active, another becomes active.
Args: name: the cabinet to remove.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds a valuable behavioral detail: 'If it was active, another becomes active.' This discloses a side effect beyond the structured annotations. It does not mention error behavior or whether removal is reversible, but the key destructive behavior is addressed.
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?
The description is exceptionally short: a purpose sentence, a relevant behavioral sentence, and a simple parameter mapping. There is no filler or redundant material, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and destructiveHint annotation, the description conveys the core action and the most important side effect. The notion of 'another becomes active' is left a bit vague, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke this tool.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description's 'name: the cabinet to remove' is the only semantic explanation for the single parameter. It clarifies that the name identifies the cabinet being deleted, though it is still fairly close to a natural reading of the parameter name itself.
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?
The opening phrase 'Delete a stored cabinet' is a clear verb+resource statement that distinguishes this tool from listing, adding, or using cabinets. It does not explicitly reference a sibling tool, but the operation and object are unambiguous enough for an agent to know what it 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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wb_add_cabinet or wb_use_cabinet. It does not explain circumstances that would make deletion inappropriate, nor does it point to any other tool for related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.