Skip to main content
Glama
wiktorekdev

nuvio-mcp

by wiktorekdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Unlink a tracker

nuvio_unlink_tracker
Destructive

Remove stored tokens for a tracker from a profile. Supports dry-run previews and snapshots the prior state, allowing revert with nuvio_undo.

Instructions

Remove stored tokens for a tracker on a profile. Supports dry_run and snapshots the previous state before the write; revert with nuvio_undo.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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).
trackerYesTracker: mal | anilist | kitsu
profile_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 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"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it supports dry_run, snapshots the previous state before writing, and references revert via nuvio_undo. This discloses side effects and recovery options not covered by annotations. 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?

The description is two concise sentences. The first states the purpose directly, and the second adds key behavioral details (dry_run, snapshot, revert). It is front-loaded and free of redundancy, with no unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers important behavioral aspects (dry_run, snapshot, revert) but does not mention the confirm parameter requirement, which is critical for a destructive operation. However, confirm is documented in the schema. The tool has no output schema, and the description does not describe the return value. Given schema coverage, it is reasonably complete but could mention the confirmation step.

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 description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description itself does not add parameter-specific information; it mentions dry_run in passing but does not explain its usage or the confirm requirement. Since the schema documents most parameters, the description adds little beyond what is already structured.

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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Remove stored tokens for a tracker on a profile.' This identifies the verb (remove) and resource (stored tokens) with specificity. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling nuvio_link_tracker, but the opposite action is implied by the tool name.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention nuvio_link_tracker or any other alternative, nor does it state conditions for use. The only usage hint is the tool's own purpose, which is implied rather than explicit.

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