Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MODX MCP

MODX MCP

by rumata-estor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

modx_revoke_context_access

Remove a context-access ACL entry by ID to revoke a user or group's access to a specific MODX context.

Instructions

Remove a context-access ACL entry by id.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "modx_revoke_context_access"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.4

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
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 burden. It says 'Remove' but does not disclose irreversibility, whether the deletion is immediate, what happens if the id does not exist, or what permissions are required for a destructive ACL mutation.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 ACL mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It omits reversibility, permission requirements, id provenance, and the effect on the affected user or context.

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 coverage is 0% for the single numeric 'id' parameter. The phrase 'by id' does clarify that the identifier is the ACL entry's id rather than a user or context id (a real ambiguity given sibling tools), but it gives no guidance on where to source that id or its format.

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 states a specific verb and resource: removing a context-access ACL entry. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as modx_grant_context_access, modx_update_context_access, and modx_list_context_access. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it does not reach a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites such as required permissions, and no pointer to modx_list_context_access for obtaining the entry id. The agent must infer that this is the counterpart to grant/update from the tool name alone.

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