Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MODX MCP

MODX MCP

by rumata-estor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

modx_revert_lexicon_entry

Remove a lexicon entry's database override to restore the original file value.

Instructions

Revert a lexicon entry — remove its DB override so the file value applies.

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_revert_lexicon_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
topicNo
languageNo
namespaceNo

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that a DB override is deleted and the file value takes over, but says nothing about reversibility, required permissions, or what happens if no override exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the effect is stated immediately after the action.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it never addresses the parameters that identify which entry is reverted, nor the result of the operation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters (name, topic, language, namespace), and the description adds no meaning for any of them. It does not explain that name is required or how topic/language/namespace scope the entry.

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 (revert) and resource (lexicon entry) and clarifies the mechanism: removing the DB override so the file value applies. This distinguishes it from modx_set_lexicon_entry, though it does not name 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 Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'so the file value applies' implies the intent behind using it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives such as modx_set_lexicon_entry or modx_list_lexicon_entries.

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