Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MODX MCP

MODX MCP

by rumata-estor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

modx_remove_resource_from_group

Removes a MODX resource from a specified resource group using resource and group IDs, so you can revoke group-based access or membership.

Instructions

Remove a resource (document) from a resource group.

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": {
      "resource": "<resource>",
      "resourceGroup": "<resourceGroup>"
    },
    "name": "modx_remove_resource_from_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resourceYesResource id.
resourceGroupYesResource group id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.4

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation that removes a membership rather than deleting the resource, but says nothing about required permissions, whether the change is reversible, what happens when the resource is not a member, or any side effects on access control.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb front-loaded and no wasted wording. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing guidance rather than a virtue of tight writing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to call it correctly. However, with no annotations it should say more about the effect of removing a resource from a group, particularly any access implications.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters documented as numeric ids, so the schema already does the work. The description adds only the terminology clarification ('document') and no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Remove a resource') and clarifies that 'resource' means 'document', which disambiguates MODX terminology. It is clearly the inverse of the sibling modx_assign_resource_to_group, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., resource group must exist, resource must currently be a member), and no note that modx_assign_resource_to_group is the inverse operation.

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