digikey-list-mcp

digikey_remove_mylist_line

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes one line from a DigiKey MyList only after explicit confirmation of the exact list ID and unique line ID. Use it to remove a specific saved part without affecting other lines.

Instructions

Delete one MyList line only when the user explicitly confirms the exact IDs.

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": {
      "list_id": "<list_id>",
      "unique_id": "<unique_id>"
    },
    "name": "digikey_remove_mylist_line"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No
`list_id`	Yes
`unique_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds the requirement for explicit user confirmation, which is useful context, but it doesn't elaborate on what else gets destroyed or any side effects. With annotations providing the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 no waste. It states the action and the critical condition directly.

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?

The tool is destructive and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, the description is minimal for a destructive operation, and it doesn't clarify the role of the 'confirm' parameter, which is crucial for safety. It provides some context but leaves gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but does not. It mentions 'exact IDs' implying list_id and unique_id are needed, but adds no format or semantics beyond what parameter names suggest. The 'confirm' flag is not explained in the description. Baseline is 3 because the schema itself defines the parameters, but description could do more.

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 (delete) and resource (MyList line), differentiating it from siblings like update_mylist_line or apply_mylist_changes. It is slightly vague about the scope ('line' rather than 'part entry'), but the core purpose is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides a clear condition for using the tool: only when the user explicitly confirms the exact IDs. It does not name alternative tools, but the gate condition is explicit and useful.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server