shelf-nu-mcp

shelf_kit_remove_assets

Remove one or more assets from a specific kit by providing the kit ID and asset IDs. Use it to update kit contents in self-hosted Shelf.

Instructions

Remove assets from a kit.

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": {
      "kitId": "<kitId>",
      "assetIds": "<assetIds>"
    },
    "name": "shelf_kit_remove_assets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kitId`	Yes
`orgId`	No	Workspace/organization ID. Defaults to SHELF_ORG_ID or your current workspace.
`assetIds`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is partially covered. However the description adds nothing about whether removal is reversible, whether it requires kit ownership/permission, or how it interacts with the open-world hint — notably it does not clarify why a removal mutation is flagged non-destructive.

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 padding, appropriately sized for a simple tool, though its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being genuinely efficient.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and only 33% parameter coverage, the description is far too thin; it omits reversal semantics, permission requirements, and the meaning of the required parameters an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 only 33% (only orgId is documented). The description mentions neither kitId nor assetIds, adds no format, batching, or minItems context, and does not compensate for the undocumented required parameters as the low-coverage case demands.

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 and resource ('Remove assets from a kit'), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling shelf_kit_add_assets by contrast. It is clear but offers no further detail about scope or effect.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no explicit reference to the sibling shelf_kit_add_assets as the inverse operation. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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

Deploy Server