entry-offline-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

entry_object_op

Delete, duplicate, or select Entry objects: duplication includes scripts and supports new names; selection shows the object on the editing screen.

Instructions

오브젝트 관리: action='delete' 삭제, 'duplicate' 복제(스크립트 포함, new_name), 'select' 선택(편집 화면에 표시).

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": {
      "action": "<action>",
      "object": "<object>"
    },
    "name": "entry_object_op"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes
`object`	Yes
`new_name`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It notes that duplicate carries the object's scripts along (a genuinely useful detail) and that select surfaces the object in the edit view, but it never warns that delete is irreversible, whether child objects go with it, or what happens on failure.

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?

A single dense line with the resource named first and the action variants listed immediately after; no filler. The parenthetical asides are slightly compressed to the point of ambiguity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage across three parameters, the description must do all the work. It leaves the primary identifier semantics and the consequences of delete unspecified, which is a real gap for a destructive-operation tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It usefully expands all three action values and ties new_name to the duplicate case, but the required "object" parameter is never explained — no indication whether it is a name, ID, or path.

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?

"오브젝트 관리" plus the three enumerated actions (delete/duplicate/select) gives a specific verb set for the object resource, enough to separate it from entry_add_object and entry_update_object. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

The line explains what each action value means but never says when to reach for this tool instead of entry_update_object, entry_add_object, or entry_object_assets, nor any preconditions (selection state, permissions). The agent must infer application context.

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