gthumb-mcp

by larsupb

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

remove_from_catalog

Remove image files from a gThumb catalog by specifying the catalog name and file paths, keeping the library organized.

Instructions

Remove image files from a gThumb catalog.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "paths": "<paths>"
    },
    "name": "remove_from_catalog"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`paths`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to address the critical question of whether files are deleted from disk or only unlinked from the catalog. It also omits idempotency (what happens if a path is not in the catalog) and any permission or error behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why behavioral detail is missing.

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?

This is a destructive-looking mutation with no annotations, zero parameter documentation, and no explanation of side effects; the presence of an output schema only relieves the need to describe return values. For a removal tool in a catalog family, the description is materially under-specified.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does not: 'name' is never explained as the catalog identifier, and 'paths' is only indirectly hinted at by 'image files'. Neither parameter's format or constraints are clarified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove image files from a gThumb catalog'), which is clearly distinct from add_to_catalog and delete_catalog. However, it never clarifies that 'name' identifies the catalog itself, so the scope of the operation is slightly ambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus delete_catalog (removing a whole catalog) or add_to_catalog. The agent must infer the distinction from names alone, and there is no mention of prerequisites such as the catalog needing to exist or the images needing to already be members.

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