Remove specified keys from localStorage or sessionStorage on the active tab's origin. Provide the storage area and an array of keys to delete.
Delete keys from localStorage or sessionStorage on the active tab's origin. Params: area (required), keys (required array).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| area | Yes | ||
| keys | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never says whether deletion is permanent/irreversible, what happens to keys that don't exist, or whether errors are raised. The origin-scoped targeting is useful behavioral context, but the destructive profile of a delete operation goes undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no padding. The second sentence is largely redundant with the schema, which keeps it from a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description should cover irreversibility, missing-key behavior, and what is returned (e.g., count deleted). It covers none of these, leaving an agent under-informed for a destructive 2-param tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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, but it only restates that area and keys are required — information already in the schema's required array and enum. Nothing explains key format, duplicate handling, or behavior for absent keys.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource (delete keys) plus the storage areas and the origin scope, which clearly separates it from clear_area (whole-area wipe) and write_storage. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The origin/tab scoping implies when this applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over clear_area or list_storage_areas, and no stated prerequisites. Usage must be inferred from the verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.