Skip to main content
Glama
wiktorekdev

nuvio-mcp

by wiktorekdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Delete a Nuvio profile

nuvio_delete_profile
Destructive

Delete a Nuvio profile and all its data (addons, settings, collections, library, history). Preview with dry_run, then confirm with a token; profile 1 is protected.

Instructions

Delete a profile and ALL of its data (addons, settings, collections, library, history). Profile 1 cannot be deleted and this cannot be undone. Cannot be undone: call it once to get a short-lived confirmation token, then call again with that token. Supports dry_run.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNoReturn the diff without writing anything (no snapshot, no audit entry).
profile_idYes
confirmation_tokenNoToken from a previous call of this tool. Irreversible operations require a two-phase prepare/execute: call once to receive the token, then call again with it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv1.1.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Required for reversible destructive changes. Without it a preview is returned.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / dry_run
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Return the diff without writing anything (no snapshot, no audit entry).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / profile_id
      Added value: +{
+  "maximum": 6,
+  "minimum": 2,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / profile_index
      Removed value: -{
-  "maximum": 6,
-  "minimum": 2,
-  "type": "integer"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "profile_index"
-]New value: +[
+  "profile_id"
+]
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them. It discloses the irreversible nature ('cannot be undone'), the exact scope of data deletion, the two-phase confirmation token mechanism (not hinted at in annotations), and the dry_run capability. These are substantial behavioral details that an agent cannot infer from structured fields alone. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each dense with information. The first sentence establishes scope, the second the irreversibility and exclusion, the third the exact procedure. Every clause earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. The front-loading of the most critical fact (what gets deleted) is excellent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: scope of destruction, irreversibility, the two-phase token requirement, and dry_run support. It could optionally mention permissions or what the success/failure response looks like, but given the annotations and schema, these are not critical. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to execute the operation correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67% (dry_run and confirmation_token have descriptions, profile_id does not). The description compensates for the missing profile_id documentation by stating 'Profile 1 cannot be deleted', which clarifies why the schema enforces a minimum of 2. It also explains the confirmation_token's role in the two-phase flow, complementing the schema text. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it could go further by specifying the token's format or expiry, but 'short-lived' is sufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Delete'), a precise resource ('profile'), and the full scope of what is removed ('ALL of its data' with explicit categories). It also distinguishes itself from related profile tools (nuvio_update_profile, nuvio_delete_collection) by its destructive scope and the unique two-phase token requirement. The purpose is unambiguous and instantly actionable.

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 gives clear operational guidance: the two-phase call flow (call once for token, then again with token) and the warning that Profile 1 cannot be deleted. It also mentions dry_run support. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other operations (e.g., updating a profile), but the purpose is so specific that the usage context is obvious. A small gap is the absence of explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the irreversibility warning implicitly covers that.

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