Skip to main content
Glama
wiktorekdev

nuvio-mcp

by wiktorekdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Remove from library

nuvio_remove_from_library
Destructive

Remove specific items from a library by content ID and type. Preview with dry_run and confirm to apply; a snapshot is saved for undo.

Instructions

Remove items from a profile's library by content_id + content_type. 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. Changed4 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
    • addedInput schema / properties / keys / items / properties / content_type / minLength
      Added value: +1
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable context beyond them: it snapshots the previous state before the write and supports dry_run returning a diff without writing. The revert pathway via nuvio_undo is explicitly disclosed. This does not contradict the annotations — the destructive hint aligns with 'remove'.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the dry_run/snapshot/undo behavior is appended concisely. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a destructive tool with a confirm gate, no output schema, and no mention of return format, the description covers the snapshot/undo/dry_run mechanics well. However, it omits the confirm requirement (documented only in the schema) and the profile_id scope, and provides no guidance on what the response contains, leaving some gaps for a mutation with undo semantics.

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% (2 of 4 params documented in schema: confirm and dry_run). The description adds meaning for 'keys' (content_id + content_type) and dry_run, but does not mention the confirm parameter — which is safety-critical for a destructive tool — nor profile_id scope. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves the confirm gate undocumented in prose.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Remove items from a profile's library') and identifies the exact keys ('content_id + content_type'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like nuvio_add_to_library (inverse) and nuvio_get_library (read-only). The title 'Remove from library' reinforces the purpose.

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 description implies usage by stating the removal mechanism and mentions dry_run as a safe preview path and nuvio_undo for revert, which is helpful operational guidance. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., nuvio_add_to_library for the reverse, or nuvio_get_library for inspection) nor any when-not conditions.

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