Rizamo

Remove an account

remove_account

DestructiveIdempotent

Use this only when the person asks to remove an account from Rizamo, after you called get_account_removal, showed them what happens and they said yes. It stops publishing and billing; posts that go to it alone move to Deleted (restorable for 30 days), posts with other accounts keep its published part and lose the part that never went out; its comments and messages in the inbox go at once and cannot come back. Nothing changes on the network. Only owners, their agents and API keys an owner let remove accounts may; anyone else is refused. Not for an account that needs a new login: give the person get_connect_link with its connectionId instead. Connecting the same account again later brings it back with the same id; posts in Deleted are restored with restore_post.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The account's id (`acc_`).
`idempotencyKey`	No	Optional. A new unique string for each new action, such as a UUID. When a call timed out or failed and you send it again, send the same key: for 24 hours the same call gets the first one's answer instead of doing it twice.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`posts`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Although annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds substantive detail beyond them: publishing and billing stop, solo posts move to Deleted and are restorable for 30 days, shared posts lose only their unpublished part, comments and messages are deleted immediately and irreversibly, and nothing changes on the network. It also documents that reconnecting restores the same id and that restore_post recovers Deleted posts.

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 confirmation prerequisite, then effects, permissions, and the alternative tool — a logical order with no filler sentences. It is dense and a few clauses are convoluted (the shared-post behavior), which keeps it from a 5.

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, permission-gated mutation with an output schema already available, the description supplies everything an agent needs: consent protocol, scope of data loss, restorability windows, authorization, and the correct fallback tool. No material gap remains.

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%, with both the acc_ id and the idempotencyKey retry semantics fully documented in the schema. The description adds only an indirect note that reconnecting yields the same id; it contributes no new syntax or constraint information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (remove an account from Rizamo) and immediately frames it as a partner action to get_account_removal, distinguishing it from siblings like get_connect_link and delete_post. An agent can identify the operation and its scope 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?

Explicitly gates invocation on a prior get_account_removal call plus user confirmation, and gives a negative case: accounts needing a new login should use get_connect_link with its connectionId instead. It also names who is permitted (owners, their agents, owner-issued API keys) and that others are refused.

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

All Rizamo 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?