Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MODX MCP

MODX MCP

by rumata-estor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

modx_delete_namespace

Delete a MODX namespace by name; core namespaces are protected from deletion.

Instructions

Delete a namespace by name ('core' cannot be deleted).

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "modx_delete_namespace"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.4

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It usefully discloses that this is destructive and that the 'core' namespace is protected, but says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, how to confirm the name, or what happens to associated lexicon entries/packages when the namespace is removed.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the protective constraint in parentheses. No filler and nothing that could be trimmed.

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, irreversible operation with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and a parameter undocumented in both schema and description, this is thin. It omits side effects, failure modes (unknown name, protected core), and permission requirements an agent would need before calling it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% — the single 'name' property is an undescribed string. The description adds that it is a namespace name and the parenthetical 'core' implicitly illustrates the expected value form, but it does not say whether the name is case-sensitive, the namespace key vs. path, or how to discover valid values.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Delete a namespace') and names the key input ('by name'), which cleanly separates it from the list/create/update namespace siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to delete a namespace versus updating or listing one, nor any prerequisite or warning about what should be done first (e.g., checking modx_list_namespaces). The only condition given is the hard-coded guard that 'core' cannot be deleted.

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