EasyTerritory MCP

Delete Territory

delete_territory

Destructive

Deletes one leaf territory from an alignment; its parts become unassigned. Needs tal_id, territory_id (the leaf id or its exact unique display name), and the Territory Solution from map_session_id, ts_handle, or ts. A territory that is already gone returns ok with already_absent=true and no task; otherwise returns a task and the open map repaints. Related: territory_merge hands a leaving rep's territory to its neighbors; delete_tal removes a whole alignment in one call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ts`	No
`tal_id`	Yes
`ts_handle`	No
`part_layer`	No
`territory_id`	Yes
`repair_policy`	No	Topology repair for dissolved territories. default fills interior holes in the dissolved geometry (no part is added or reassigned; repair_summary.changed_part_ids lists the territories' own parts). report_only detects holes and changes nothing (warning REPAIR_AVAILABLE). strict fails with REPAIR_REQUIRED when a hole is found.	default
`map_session_id`	No
`expected_revision`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 9, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / guidance_handle

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "title": "Guidance Handle"
-}

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / repair_policy / description

Added value: +"Topology repair for dissolved territories. default fills interior holes in the dissolved geometry (no part is added or reassigned; repair_summary.changed_part_ids lists the territories' own parts). report_only detects holes and changes nothing (warning REPAIR_AVAILABLE). strict fails with REPAIR_REQUIRED when a hole is found."

addedInput schema / properties / repair_policy / enum

Added value: +[
+  "default",
+  "strict",
+  "report_only"
+]

First observedSep 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds real value beyond that: what happens to the leaf's parts (they become unassigned), the already_absent=true ok-return for an already-deleted territory, that a task is returned, and that the open map repaints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the action, then requirements, edge-case behavior, and sibling routing in four dense sentences with no filler. The information is packed but every clause earns its place.

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 mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies prerequisites, edge-case semantics, and alternatives. The only gap is the unaddressed part_layer and expected_revision parameters.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate; it explains that territory_id accepts the leaf id or its exact unique display name, and clarifies that the Territory Solution may come from map_session_id, ts_handle, or ts. It leaves part_layer and expected_revision undocumented, so compensation is partial rather than complete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Deletes one leaf territory from an alignment") with clear scope. The Related sentence explicitly contrasts it with territory_merge and delete_tal, letting an agent distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Names concrete alternatives with the condition that selects them: delete_tal "removes a whole alignment in one call" vs. this tool's single-leaf scope, and territory_merge for reassigning a departing rep's territory. Clear context, though it stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All EasyTerritory MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?