Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

PixelGlass

by co.pixelglass
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Remove a label from a member

remove_member_label
Idempotent

On one site of the account, named in site. Takes one label off the member — by their address, or their app's id — by the label's name in any case. The member gets no more emails from the automations for that label. A label the member does not have changes nothing.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "member": "<member>",
      "label": "<label>"
    },
    "name": "remove_member_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYesThe site to work on, as list_sites names it
labelYesThe label's name
memberYesThe member's address, or their app's id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real context beyond them: the downstream effect that the member stops receiving emails from that label's automations, and the confirmation that a missing label is a silent no-op (which substantiates the idempotent hint). It does not cover permissions or the response shape, which is a minor remaining gap given the annotations.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the scope (site) before the action and its effect. The phrasing is slightly informal ("on one site of the account, named in site") but nothing is redundant, and the no-op caveat 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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers scope, matching semantics, the consequential effect, and the no-op case. The only omissions are permission requirements and any confirmation of return value, both minor here since annotations carry the safety profile.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: the label is matched "by the label's name in any case" (case-insensitive matching is not stated in the schema), and it restates member identification by address or app id in context. That extra matching semantics is exactly the kind of detail an agent cannot infer from the field types.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("takes one label off the member") plus its scope ("on one site of the account"), and it is clearly distinguishable from siblings add_member_label and remove_from_circle. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Usage context is clear: one site, one member identified by address or app id, one label by name. The sentence "A label the member does not have changes nothing" clarifies the edge case where the operation is a no-op. It never explicitly names the alternative (add_member_label) or states exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternative routing.

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

All PixelGlass 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