RelayLink

Change a group

update_group

DestructiveIdempotent

Add or remove members on a group the user owns, or dissolve it. Only on the user's explicit request, naming exactly who to add or remove — never add or remove somebody the user did not name. Adding requires an accepted contact. Taking somebody off reaches future sends only: anything already sent to them stands, and a Separate member never learns either way. Dissolving frees the group's name to reuse and stops it being addressable; it does not touch any thread the group already created.

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": {
      "group": "<group>"
    },
    "name": "update_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`add`	No	Members to add, each as the user names them: nickname, name or address. Every one must already be an accepted contact.
`group`	Yes	The group to change, by name or id — one the user owns, from list_groups.
`remove`	No	Members to remove, by email address or their current display name.
`dissolve`	No	true to dissolve the group. Ignored if add or remove are also given.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: removal affects only future sends, already-sent messages stand, a Separate member is never notified, and dissolve frees the name while leaving existing threads untouched. That is exactly the consequence-level detail an agent needs before a destructive mutation.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying a distinct fact: the operation, the authorization constraint, the removal side effect, and the dissolve semantics. Front-loaded with the verb and no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, multi-mode mutation with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, what is and isn't destroyed, and the add/remove vs dissolve interaction. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 100% and each parameter already carries its own description (accepted-contact requirement, name-or-id lookup, dissolve being ignored alongside add/remove). The description restates the add prerequisite ("Adding requires an accepted contact") but adds little parameter-level syntax beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource pair ("Add or remove members on a group") plus a second mode ("or dissolve it"), which cleanly separates it from create_group, leave_group, and list_groups. An agent can tell what this tool does 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?

Gives a strong precondition — only on the user's explicit request, naming exactly who, never acting on unnamed people — and scopes it to groups the user owns (reinforced by the schema's "from list_groups"). It does not name sibling alternatives such as create_group or leave_group, so routing between related tools is left implicit.

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

All RelayLink 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?