leafwiki-mcp

by ipapadop

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

remove_favorite

Remove a page from your favorites in LeafWiki by ID or path. Returns a removal confirmation.

Instructions

Remove a page from the authenticated user's favorites.

Args: id: Page identifier, preferred when both selectors are supplied. path: Slash-separated page path.

Returns: Serializable removal confirmation.

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": "remove_favorite"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`path`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the removal is scoped to the authenticated user's own favorites, but says nothing about idempotency, behavior when the page is not favorited, required permissions, or reversibility.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by tight Args entries; nothing is padded except the 'Returns: Serializable removal confirmation' line, which is redundant given an output schema exists. Efficient overall.

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?

Both optional selectors are documented and an output schema exists, so return format need not be described. The remaining gap is behavioral: error/no-op behavior when the page is not currently a favorite is not covered for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters and it does: id is the page identifier with an explicit precedence rule ('preferred when both selectors are supplied'), and path is described as a slash-separated page path. Both optional selectors are covered, though no format examples are given.

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 ('Remove a page from the authenticated user's favorites') with a clear scope qualifier (the authenticated user's favorites). It is unambiguously the inverse of the sibling add_favorite, so an agent can pick it without opening either schema.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance beyond the implicit inverse of add_favorite. The id-vs-path note is an invocation detail, not tool-selection guidance, so the dimension is left essentially unaddressed.

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