Inbox Triage

Stop treating people or domains as VIPs

remove_vip

DestructiveIdempotent

Removes email addresses and/or domains from the account VIP list. Always ask the person first, naming every entry you would remove, and call again with confirmed:true only after they agree in chat. Without confirmed:true nothing is removed and the result lists what would be. In apps that can prompt the person directly (MCP elicitation), a call without confirmed:true asks them in the app and removes the entries only if they say yes; the result says what they chose. Entries that were not on the list are ignored. Returns only what was removed and the new totals, not the whole VIP list. The person can also remove VIPs on the Settings page.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "remove_vip"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`emails`	No	Email addresses to drop from the VIP list
`domains`	No	Domains to drop from the VIP list
`confirmed`	No	true only after the person agreed in chat to remove exactly these entries

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the crucial behavioral fact those hints cannot convey: without confirmed:true nothing is removed and the call degrades into a dry-run preview. It further discloses that non-list entries are silently ignored, that elicitation may resolve the confirmation in-app, and that the result is a partial payload (removed items plus totals) rather than the full list.

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-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the consent requirement, so the most important constraint is not buried. The elicitation and Settings-page sentences are somewhat long and partially repeat the confirmation rule, costing a little density but each carries distinct routing information.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: consent protocol, dry-run default, unknown-entry handling, return shape (removed + new totals, not the whole list), and the out-of-band alternatives. Nothing required to invoke it safely is missing.

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 real meaning to the `confirmed` parameter — it is a two-phase consent gate tied to chat agreement or elicitation, not a generic boolean. It also clarifies that emails and domains are treated as droppable entries with unknown ones ignored, which the schema's terse property descriptions do not convey.

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 ("Removes email addresses and/or domains from the account VIP list") and the title/name pairing makes the inverse relationship to add_vip unambiguous. An agent can distinguish this from add_vip and the other mutation 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit prerequisite (ask the person first, naming every entry), the exact call sequence (call again with confirmed:true only after agreement), and the alternative paths (MCP elicitation prompts in-app; the Settings page for manual removal). When-not-to-use is implied through the confirmed gate and stated outright for unconfirmed calls.

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

All Inbox Triage 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?