Skip to main content
Glama
wiktorekdev

nuvio-mcp

by wiktorekdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Delete watch history

nuvio_delete_watch_history
Destructive

Delete watch-history entries by content ID, optionally specifying season and episode. Preview changes with dry run; snapshots previous state for undo.

Instructions

Delete watch-history entries by content id (and season/episode). Supports dry_run and snapshots the previous state before the write; revert with nuvio_undo.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keysYes
confirmNoRequired to actually apply a destructive change. Without it a preview is returned.
dry_runNoReturn the diff without writing anything (no snapshot, no audit entry).
profile_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.1.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description
      Previous value: -"Required for reversible destructive changes. Without it a preview is returned."New value: +"Required to actually apply a destructive change. Without it a preview is returned."
    • addedInput schema / properties / dry_run
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Return the diff without writing anything (no snapshot, no audit entry).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / keys / items / properties / content_id / minLength
      Added value: +1
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavior: it snapshots the previous state before writing, supports dry_run, and references revert with nuvio_undo. It doesn't mention audit entries or confirm details beyond what schema covers, but it provides essential behavioral context beyond the 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?

The description is two sentences, tightly written, with the purpose front-loaded. It includes essential behavioral notes without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it deletes, how to specify keys, the dry_run option, snapshot behavior, and revert path. It omits explicit mention of profile_id and confirm semantics (though confirm is described in schema), but these are relatively minor given the clarity of the tool's purpose and the schema's coverage. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 50%: confirm and dry_run have descriptions, while keys and profile_id do not. The description clarifies that keys is an array of objects with content_id and optional season/episode, adding meaning to the keys parameter. However, it does not explain profile_id or its default, leaving a gap. The description partially compensates for the low coverage but not fully.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete watch-history entries') and the resource ('watch-history entries') with a specific identifier ('by content id'), and optionally season/episode. It distinguishes itself from siblings like nuvio_add_to_watch_history and nuvio_get_watch_history by indicating the exact deletion scope.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, it implies usage by describing the deletion mechanism and safety features (dry_run, snapshot, revert). It says 'Supports dry_run and snapshots the previous state before the write; revert with nuvio_undo,' giving context on how to use it safely, which is sufficient for an obvious delete operation.

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