Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
liveblocks

Liveblocks

Official
by liveblocks
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

delete-notification-settings

Remove user notification preferences from Liveblocks collaboration platform to manage alert settings.

Instructions

Delete Liveblocks notification settings

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userIdYes

Implementation Reference

  • src/server.ts:803-817 (registration)
    Registration of the MCP tool 'delete-notification-settings', including description, input schema (userId: string), and handler function that delegates to Liveblocks SDK's deleteNotificationSettings method.
    server.tool(
  "delete-notification-settings",
  "Delete Liveblocks notification settings",
  {
    userId: z.string(),
  },
  async ({ userId }, extra) => {
    return await callLiveblocksApi(
      getLiveblocks().deleteNotificationSettings(
        { userId },
        { signal: extra.signal }
      )
    );
  }
);
  • src/server.ts:809-816 (handler)
    The handler implementation for 'delete-notification-settings' tool. It takes userId and calls getLiveblocks().deleteNotificationSettings via callLiveblocksApi utility.
    async ({ userId }, extra) => {
  return await callLiveblocksApi(
    getLiveblocks().deleteNotificationSettings(
      { userId },
      { signal: extra.signal }
    )
  );
}
  • src/server.ts:806-808 (schema)
    Input schema definition for the tool using Zod: requires a 'userId' string.
    {
  userId: z.string(),
},

Tool Definition Quality

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a deletion, implying it's destructive, but doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on behavioral implications (e.g., irreversibility), required permissions, error conditions, or what constitutes success. For a tool that permanently deletes data, more contextual guidance is needed.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description doesn't compensate by explaining the 'userId' parameter. It doesn't clarify what the userId represents (e.g., whose settings are deleted) or provide any semantic context beyond what's inferred from the tool name. With one undocumented parameter, the baseline score of 3 reflects minimal adequacy, as the description adds no value over the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('Liveblocks notification settings'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'update-notification-settings' by specifying deletion rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what gets deleted (e.g., all settings vs. per-user), which prevents a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-notification-settings' or 'delete-room-subscription-settings'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether settings must exist first, or contextual factors like user permissions. This leaves the agent with minimal direction for appropriate tool selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/liveblocks/liveblocks-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server