Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-trove

mcp-trove

by mauriziomocci
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

trove_remove

Remove a snippet or secret entry by name, deleting its content and metadata, and rebuild the index.

Instructions

Remove an entry by name and rebuild the index. For secrets, both the encrypted payload and its metadata sidecar are deleted.

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>",
      "kind": "<kind>"
    },
    "name": "trove_remove"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYes'snippet' or 'secret'.
nameYesTitle or slug of the entry.
domainNoSnippet domain (helps locate the file).
subpathNoSnippet sub-folder.
categoryNoSecret category (recommended).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions index rebuilding and secret sidecar deletion, which are important side effects. However, it does not address permanence, permissions, or dependencies beyond what's stated, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and efficiently covers the essentials without any wasted words.

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?

For a removal tool, the description covers the main action and distinguishes behavior for secrets. It does not explain return values (no output schema) or possible failures, but given the simplicity and 100% schema coverage, it is fairly complete.

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description repeats 'name' and 'kind' in context but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('remove an entry by name'), the resource ('entry'), and provides specific detail about secrets (payload and metadata sidecar deletion). It distinguishes from sibling tools like trove_add_secret and trove_update_secret.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for removal but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context signals show sibling tools like trove_add_snippet and trove_update_secret, but no comparative advice is given.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools