Skip to main content
Glama
wiktorekdev

nuvio-mcp

by wiktorekdev

Unset a nested setting

nuvio_unset_setting

Remove a nested setting value by dot path. Preview changes with dry-run and restore the previous state using undo.

Instructions

[DEPRECATED] Use nuvio_update_settings instead. Delete one nested value by dot path. Supports dry_run and snapshots the previous state before the write; revert with nuvio_undo.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
dry_runNoReturn the diff without writing anything (no snapshot, no audit entry).
platformNotv
profile_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / dry_run
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Return the diff without writing anything (no snapshot, no audit entry).",
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
    • removedInput schema / properties / platform / description
      Removed value: -"Platform namespace: tv | mobile | desktop | web"
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description says the tool deletes a value and performs a write, and it snapshots the previous state, but the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. Deleting a nested value is a destructive operation, even when reversible, so the description contradicts the annotation.

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 short and front-loaded: deprecation first, then the operation, then dry_run and undo behavior. Every sentence adds operational value with no filler.

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 the core call pattern, dry_run behavior, and revert path, which is good. But it omits what platform and profile_id select, says nothing about return/error behavior, and relies on the deprecation note to route the agent away. Given no output schema, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description usefully clarifies that path uses dot notation, which is the key required parameter. However, schema coverage is only 25%, and platform and profile_id are left completely unexplained, so the description does not adequately compensate for the low coverage.

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 a specific operation: delete one nested value by dot path. The deprecation note naming nuvio_update_settings distinguishes this tool from the many settings-related siblings and prevents selection mistakes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says the tool is deprecated and tells the agent to use nuvio_update_settings instead. It also explains dry_run and undo support, giving enough context for when this tool might be used safely.

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