Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MODX MCP

MODX MCP

by rumata-estor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

modx_delete_context_setting

Delete a specific MODX context setting by context key and setting key to remove outdated or incorrect configuration values.

Instructions

Delete a context setting (by context_key + key).

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": {
      "context_key": "<context_key>",
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "modx_delete_context_setting"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYes
context_keyYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.4

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It says only that the setting is deleted; it does not state irreversibility, permission requirements, behavior when the setting is absent, or side effects. The verb implies a destructive mutation, but no specifics are disclosed.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The parenthetical efficiently identifies the composite key. It is appropriately brief for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition leaves out permissions, failure modes, and post-deletion effects. It is sufficient only to recognize the operation, not to call it safely or understand consequences.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, both required parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only names context_key and key as a composite identifier; it does not explain what a context key is, what setting key format is expected, or whether namespaces matter. It adds little beyond the parameter names.

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?

States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('context setting'), and names the composite identifier. It clearly distinguishes context settings from other setting types, though it does not explicitly name the sibling system-setting delete tool.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives such as update_context_setting or delete_system_setting. The identity pair is given, but an agent gets no conditions for choosing this deletion tool.

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