Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Tech Debt MCP Server

Tech Debt MCP Server

by viniciosrab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

remove_custom_rule

Deletes a custom technical debt rule by ID so outdated or unwanted rules can be removed from the MCP server's rule set.

Instructions

Remove a custom rule 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": "remove_custom_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID of the rule to remove

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 for a destructive mutation. It says nothing about irreversibility, whether confirmation is needed, what happens to rules referenced by existing analyses, or permission requirements — only the bare fact of removal.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler, so it reads instantly. It is efficient rather than padded, though its brevity reflects missing content rather than disciplined editing.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition should at minimum cover irreversibility and error behavior (e.g., unknown ID). Neither is present, leaving the agent under-informed before performing a destructive call.

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% and the single 'id' property is already documented as 'ID of the rule to remove', so the description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('custom rule') plus the identifying key ('by ID'), which cleanly separates it from add_custom_rule, list_custom_rules, and execute_custom_rules. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating scope, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 name and phrase 'by ID' imply the operation targets one existing rule, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., the rule must already exist), and no note that this is irreversible or that execute/list are the read-side alternatives. Usage is only implied.

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