Remove a shared media item by ID to revoke access and clean up library shares.
Delete share mediaitem.
DELETE /api/share/mediaitem/{id}
Args: id: Path parameter. body: Request payload. Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| body | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds a hint about the body payload ('Read the matching GET or /schema endpoint...') and states the HTTP method, but does not discuss side effects, reversibility, or authorization. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a modest score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. The endpoint and argument explanations are efficient. It earns a top score for conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides the essential endpoint and points to external documentation for the body fields. However, it lacks context about what a 'share mediaitem' is, the nature of the id, or any caveats about the deletion. This is adequate but not complete for an agent unfamiliar with the resource.
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?
The schema provides no description for the body parameter (coverage 0%), and the description compensates by advising the agent to read the GET endpoint or /schema for field expectations. For the id parameter, it only restates 'Path parameter' without explaining its semantic meaning (e.g., that it identifies a share media item). This adds some value for body, but minimal for id.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('share mediaitem'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling deletion tools like delete_items_by_id or delete_libraries_by_id. The endpoint path further clarifies the resource type. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or why one might choose this over other delete tools. The only clue is the resource name, but that is implicit rather than explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.