Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
q-sys-mcp

q-sys-mcp

by reowens
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Destroy a change group

qsys_destroy_change_group

Destroy a change group by providing its ID to free server-side state and system resources.

Instructions

Destroy a change group, freeing its server-side state (ChangeGroup.Destroy).

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "qsys_destroy_change_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesChange group id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description must fully explain behavior. While it indicates destructiveness, it fails to disclose important traits such as idempotency, error handling, or side effects like what happens to related data or if the group is in use.

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 concise with one sentence that front-loads the action. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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?

For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description lacks crucial contextual details about behavior, error conditions, and prerequisites, making it insufficient for safe usage.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'id' described. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 tool destroys a change group, with the additional detail of freeing server-side state. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like qsys_create_change_group and qsys_poll_change_group.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions for use. It lacks context about proper usage.

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