Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SHIP

by ai.letsship
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Remove site waitlist entry

remove_site_waitlist_entry
Destructive

Remove one address from the waitlist of a site that SHIP made, for example when a visitor asks to be deleted. Give the address as email. Add entryId from list_site_waitlist to remove that entry only while it still holds the address. When nothing matches, the call fails with site_waitlist_entry_not_found and nothing changes. The address leaves the live list at once. The database's recovery history keeps it for up to 30 days, then it is gone, and SHIP does not restore single addresses. The call needs the site-waitlist:write scope and an owner or an admin of the workspace, and the audit log records each removal.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "siteId": "<siteId>",
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "remove_site_waitlist_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesThe address to remove; upper and lower case do not matter
siteIdYesSite id from list_sites
entryIdNoThe id of the entry, from list_site_waitlist. With it, the call removes that entry only while it still holds the address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the site_waitlist_entry_not_found failure leaves state unchanged, the address disappears from the live list immediately, a 30-day recovery window exists and single addresses are never restored, and the call requires the site-waitlist:write scope plus owner or admin rights with an audit-log record. This is materially more than the annotations convey.

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?

The action and target are front-loaded, and the later sentences each carry distinct payload (matching semantics, failure mode, retention, permissions). It is dense but slightly overlong, reading as one continuous block rather than clearly separated usage and side-effect sections.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers preconditions, matching behavior, failure semantics, retention, and authorization. The only gap is that it never indicates what a successful response contains, leaving the agent to infer the return shape.

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 100%, so email, siteId, and entryId are already documented, including case-insensitivity and the 'still holds the address' condition. The description restates those same semantics (email format, entryId sourced from list_site_waitlist) rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove one address from the waitlist of a site,' and scopes it to entries SHIP created. It is clearly the write-side counterpart of list_site_waitlist, so an agent can separate it from the many list_/get_ siblings without opening the 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?

It gives a concrete trigger ('when a visitor asks to be deleted') and explains the two invocation modes: email alone, or email plus entryId from list_site_waitlist to target a single entry. It does not state explicit exclusions or point to any other alternative tool, so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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

All SHIP toolsInspect
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