CRM Connector

Propose: Remove followers

propose_remove_follower

AI Agents (inside one system): Use when the person asks for this in a system whose AI agent may change records: Users who no longer follow a record. Give one item per record, at most 25. Nothing is written yet: the answer shows, per record, what it holds now and would hold after, plus a proposal id. Show it to the person, say so first when something would be sent to the people in their system, ask whether to go ahead, and only then call apply_proposal; when needsApproval is true, share the approve link instead. Not for reading (use search_records or get_record).

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": {
      "system": "<system>",
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "propose_remove_follower"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes	One object per record, at most 25.
`system`	Yes	Which AI agent: the system's id from get_ai_agent_options, or the name of the system or its connection. Ask the person which AI agent they mean unless they named it in this conversation; never pick one yourself.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`notice`	No
`changes`	Yes
`systemId`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`expiresAt`	Yes
`approveUrl`	Yes
`proposalId`	Yes
`systemName`	Yes
`needsApproval`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 10, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / type / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "contact",
-  "opportunity"
-]New value: +[
+  "contact",
+  "opportunity",
+  "ticket"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedNov 5, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / system / description

Previous value: -"Which AI agent: the system's id from get_ai_agents_info, or the name of the system or its connection. Ask the person which AI agent they mean unless they named it in this conversation; never pick one yourself."New value: +"Which AI agent: the system's id from get_ai_agent_options, or the name of the system or its connection. Ask the person which AI agent they mean unless they named it in this conversation; never pick one yourself."

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, which is thin for a mutation. The description adds substantial context the annotations cannot: the call is a dry run that writes nothing, returns a before/after per record and a proposal id, requires human confirmation, and may send something to people in the user's system. That side-effect warning and the needsApproval branch are exactly the kind of disclosure an agent needs before invoking.

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 definition is dense but front-loaded, leading with the usage scope, then the payload rule, then the behavioral contract and approval flow, then exclusions. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the opening "AI Agents (inside one system):" label is awkward and the sentence structure is choppier than necessary.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it still usefully summarizes them (before/after plus proposal id). Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition covers trigger, payload shape, dry-run semantics, human-confirmation step, and the apply_proposal handoff, leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents system, items, the per-record type/id/users fields, and the 25-item cap. The description mostly restates schema facts ("Give one item per record, at most 25") and adds only a light gloss that "users" are the followers being removed. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The definition states the resource precisely ("Users who no longer follow a record") and the operation is implied by the title plus "Nothing is written yet... plus a proposal id." It clearly distinguishes itself from the read path ("Not for reading (use search_records or get_record)"). The only gap is that the body never states the verb directly, leaving the propose-remove semantics to be assembled from name and title.

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 gives an explicit trigger ("Use when the person asks for this in a system whose AI agent may change records"), the exact follow-up sequence (show the preview, ask for confirmation, then call apply_proposal, or share the approve link when needsApproval is true), and an explicit exclusion routing to search_records/get_record. Nothing about when to use versus when not to use is left to inference.

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

All CRM Connector 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?