Skip to main content
Glama

remove_prompts

Remove prompts configuration or specific fields from TaskFlow MCP to manage task structure and user approval workflows.

Instructions

Remove the entire prompts configuration or specific fields from it.

If 'fields' is provided, only those specific fields will be removed. If 'fields' is not provided, the entire prompts configuration will be removed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNo

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that executes the remove_prompts tool by calling the service method with extracted fields.
    async remove_prompts(args: any) {
      const { fields } = args ?? {};
      return service.removePrompts(fields);
    },
  • Tool schema definition including name, description, and input schema for validating arguments.
    export const REMOVE_PROMPTS_TOOL: Tool = {
      name: "remove_prompts",
      description:
        "Remove the entire prompts configuration or specific fields from it.\n\n" +
        "If 'fields' is provided, only those specific fields will be removed.\n" +
        "If 'fields' is not provided, the entire prompts configuration will be removed.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          fields: { 
            type: "array", 
            items: { 
              type: "string",
              enum: ["instructions", "taskPrefix", "taskSuffix"]
            }
          },
        },
      },
    };
  • Registration of all tools including REMOVE_PROMPTS_TOOL in the MCP server's listTools handler.
    tools: [
      PLAN_TASK_TOOL,
      GET_NEXT_TASK_TOOL,
      MARK_TASK_DONE_TOOL,
      OPEN_TASK_DETAILS_TOOL,
      LIST_REQUESTS_TOOL,
      ADD_TASKS_TO_REQUEST_TOOL,
      UPDATE_TASK_TOOL,
      DELETE_TASK_TOOL,
      ADD_SUBTASKS_TOOL,
      MARK_SUBTASK_DONE_TOOL,
      UPDATE_SUBTASK_TOOL,
      DELETE_SUBTASK_TOOL,
      EXPORT_TASK_STATUS_TOOL,
      ADD_NOTE_TOOL,
      UPDATE_NOTE_TOOL,
      DELETE_NOTE_TOOL,
      ADD_DEPENDENCY_TOOL,
      GET_PROMPTS_TOOL,
      SET_PROMPTS_TOOL,
      UPDATE_PROMPTS_TOOL,
      REMOVE_PROMPTS_TOOL,
      ARCHIVE_COMPLETED_REQUESTS_TOOL,
      LIST_ARCHIVED_REQUESTS_TOOL,
      RESTORE_ARCHIVED_REQUEST_TOOL,
    ],
  • Core implementation in TaskFlowService that removes prompts configuration entirely or specific fields, saves changes, and returns status.
    public async removePrompts(fields?: string[]) {
      await this.loadTasks();
      
      if (!this.data.prompts) {
        return { status: "no_prompts", message: "No prompts configuration to remove." };
      }
      
      if (fields && fields.length > 0) {
        // Remove specific fields
        for (const field of fields) {
          if (field === "instructions" || field === "taskPrefix" || field === "taskSuffix") {
            delete this.data.prompts[field];
          }
        }
        
        this.data.prompts.updatedAt = new Date().toISOString();
        
        // If no content fields remain, remove the entire prompts object
        const hasContent = this.data.prompts.instructions || this.data.prompts.taskPrefix || this.data.prompts.taskSuffix;
        if (!hasContent) {
          delete this.data.prompts;
        }
        
        await this.saveTasks();
        
        return {
          status: "prompts_fields_removed",
          prompts: this.data.prompts || null,
          message: `Removed fields: ${fields.join(", ")}`
        };
      } else {
        // Remove entire prompts configuration
        delete this.data.prompts;
        await this.saveTasks();
        
        return {
          status: "prompts_removed",
          message: "Prompts configuration has been completely removed."
        };
      }
    }
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 describes the conditional removal behavior based on 'fields', which is useful, but fails to address critical aspects: it doesn't specify if this is a destructive operation (implied by 'remove' but not explicit), what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly address the core functionality without waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second explains the parameter-driven behavior, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with conditional behavior), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic parameter logic but misses critical context: it doesn't explain the return value, error handling, side effects, or how this interacts with sibling tools like 'update_prompts'. For a tool that modifies configuration, this leaves too many unknowns for reliable agent use.

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 schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains the semantics of the 'fields' parameter: if provided, only those specific fields are removed; if not, the entire configuration is removed. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's enum values ('instructions', 'taskPrefix', 'taskSuffix'), though it doesn't detail what each field represents or the impact of removal.

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 verb 'remove' and the resource 'prompts configuration or specific fields from it', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_prompts', 'set_prompts', and 'update_prompts' by focusing on deletion rather than retrieval, creation, or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'delete_task' or 'delete_subtask', which might cause minor confusion about scope.

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 through conditional logic based on the 'fields' parameter, suggesting when to use it for partial vs. full removal. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'update_prompts' for modifications or 'set_prompts' for replacement, and doesn't mention prerequisites or error conditions. This leaves some ambiguity in decision-making.

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/pinkpixel-dev/taskflow-mcp'

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