Marsell

Offering remove

offering_remove

Destructive

Takes an offering off everywhere it shows: Brand's What you offer, Sell's ways in, the plans and pages Marsell makes, and the facts it writes from (an owner rule keeps it out of every post and page). Use it when the owner says to remove something from what they offer, or that something listed is not theirs. Read offerings_read first and pass every name it goes by; a name written nowhere is refused. Sell's list is then read again in the background, at what that read costs. Returns the names taken off and the rule written; offering_restore puts it back. It needs an act key.

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": {
      "names": "<names>",
      "why": "<why>"
    },
    "name": "offering_remove"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`why`	Yes	not_ours: the owner says it is not theirs (another company's, a client's, a mistake); not_offered: it is theirs but no longer sold
`names`	Yes	every name the offering goes by: as What you offer shows it, as Sell lists it, and as the facts write it (offerings_read shows them); one offering, or several the owner named
`project`	No	The project's id or exact name. Optional when the account has one project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: cascade scope (it removes across four surfaces and an owner rule keeps it out of all posts and pages), a costed background re-read of Sell's list, a hard refusal for unknown names, and an 'act key' requirement. It does not quantify the cost or say whether removal is immediate or eventual. No contradiction with annotations: a destructive removal is consistent with destructiveHint=true.

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?

It is front-loaded with the action and blast radius, and each subsequent sentence carries new information (prerequisite, side effect, return values, undo). The dense in-house vocabulary ('the plans and pages Marsell makes', 'the facts it writes from') makes it heavier to parse than the content requires.

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 no output schema, the description still reports what comes back ('the names taken off and the rule written'), plus prerequisites, refusal behavior, async side effect and reversal. For a destructive 3-parameter tool this leaves nothing material an agent needs before calling it.

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 meaning the schema lacks: names must be every alias an offering goes by and must already exist ('a name written nowhere is refused'), and it points to offerings_read for discovering them. The 'act key' requirement is mentioned but never tied to a schema field, which is a small loose end.

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 verb and resource are explicit ('Takes an offering off'), and the sentence enumerates the surfaces affected (What you offer, Sell's ways in, plans/pages, facts). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming offerings_read as a prerequisite and offering_restore as the reversal. The product-specific vocabulary ('Marsell makes', 'Sell's ways in') is opaque to an outsider, keeping it short of a 5.

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 states exactly when to use it ('when the owner says to remove something ... or that something listed is not theirs'), the mandatory prerequisite ('Read offerings_read first and pass every name it goes by'), the refusal condition ('a name written nowhere is refused'), and the undo path ('offering_restore puts it back'). That is when-to-use, ordering, failure mode and alternative in one place.

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

All Marsell 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.