gthumb-mcp

by larsupb

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

delete_tag

Remove a tag definition from a gThumb library without altering images; use set_tags to untag files instead.

Instructions

Delete a tag definition (does not rewrite images; use set_tags to untag files).

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": {
      "tag": "<tag>"
    },
    "name": "delete_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tag`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load; it does disclose the crucial non-obvious side effect that image metadata is untouched. However, it omits reversibility (is deletion permanent?), permission requirements, and error behavior for a missing tag — significant gaps for an unannotated destructive operation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical that earns its place by preventing a common misuse. Zero waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the key mutation side effect is covered. What's missing is permanence and failure behavior, which matter for an unannotated delete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% for the single 'tag' parameter, so the schema gives no guidance, and the description doesn't compensate: it never says whether 'tag' is a tag name, ID, or path, or whether it must already exist. The meaning of the only required argument is left ambiguous.

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 ("Delete a tag definition") and immediately bounds the scope with "does not rewrite images", so an agent can distinguish it from tag-manipulation siblings like set_tags without inspecting schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Names the alternative (set_tags) and the condition that selects it (removing tags from files). It gives clear context and one explicit exclusion, but doesn't state prerequisites such as whether the tag must exist or what other operations precede a safe delete.

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