push_contempt_mcp

by ness1-contempt

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

annulla_modifica_in_corso

Discard a pending product modification staged by a prepare action so no changes are saved to the WooCommerce catalog.

Instructions

Scarta la modifica in sospeso da un tool prepara_*, senza salvare.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "annulla_modifica_in_corso"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral fact — the pending change is discarded and not saved — but says nothing about what happens if no modification is pending, whether a confirmation is required, or whether any state is returned.

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 short sentence with the effect front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema cancellation tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential action and non-persistence. It falls short only on edge-case behavior (no pending change) and any confirmation semantics.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed.

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 (scarta) and resource (la modifica in sospeso) and ties it to the originating family of tools (prepara_*), which cleanly separates it from conferma_modifica_in_corso. An agent can identify the operation without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'da un tool prepara_*' implies the sequence (call after a prepara_* tool, instead of confirming), but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative is given. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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