Skip to main content
Glama
r3-yamauchi

MCP Configuration Editor

by r3-yamauchi

remove_server

Delete MCP server configurations from AWS Q Developer and Claude Desktop to manage your server list effectively.

Instructions

MCPサーバー設定を削除する。

Args:
    name: 削除するサーバーの名前

Returns:
    Dict[str, Any]: 成功メッセージと残りのサーバーリスト、またはエラー情報

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'remove_server' tool. It loads the MCP configuration, checks if the server exists, deletes it from the config, saves the updated config (with backup), and returns success or error details. Registered via the @mcp.tool decorator.
    @mcp.tool(name="remove_server")
    async def remove_server(name: str) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """MCPサーバー設定を削除する。
    
        Args:
            name: 削除するサーバーの名前
    
        Returns:
            Dict[str, Any]: 成功メッセージと残りのサーバーリスト、またはエラー情報
        """
        config = load_config()
    
        if name not in config.mcpServers:
            # サーバーが見つからない場合はエラーを返す
            logger.warning(f"Attempted to remove non-existent server: {name}")
            return {"error": f"Server '{name}' not found", "available_servers": list(config.mcpServers.keys())}
    
        # サーバーを削除して保存
        del config.mcpServers[name]
    
        try:
            save_config(config)
            logger.info(f"Successfully removed server: {name}")
            return {"message": f"Server '{name}' removed successfully", "remaining_servers": list(config.mcpServers.keys())}
        except Exception as e:
            logger.error(f"Failed to save configuration after removing server {name}: {e}")
            return {"error": f"Failed to save configuration: {str(e)}", "hint": "Check file permissions and disk space"}
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes server settings, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, error handling specifics, or rate limits. The return format is mentioned but without details on success/error structures, leaving gaps 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured but could be more integrated. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the return type explanation is somewhat technical without practical guidance.

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 (destructive mutation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address safety concerns, error scenarios, or integration with sibling tools, making it inadequate for confident agent use without additional context.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that the 'name' parameter is '削除するサーバーの名前' (the name of the server to delete), which clarifies its purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema details (e.g., format constraints). Baseline is 3 due to low parameter count.

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 tool's purpose as 'MCPサーバー設定を削除する' (deletes MCP server settings), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'add_server', 'update_server', and 'get_server' by focusing on deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_servers' in terms of destructive action, which slightly reduces clarity.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., server must exist), exclusions, or compare with siblings like 'update_server' for modifications or 'get_server' for checking before deletion. Usage is implied through the action but lacks explicit context.

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/r3-yamauchi/mcp-conf-mcp-server'

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