FeatureOS

Unassign feature request

unassign_feature_request

Destructive

Remove the assignee from a feature request.

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": {
      "feature_request_id": "<feature_request_id>"
    },
    "name": "unassign_feature_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`feature_request_id`	Yes	The ID of the feature request to unassign.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`feature_request`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the name: it doesn't say whether this errors on an unassigned request, whether the removed assignee is notified, or that the feature request itself is otherwise untouched.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler or redundancy. Nothing could be trimmed, though the brevity also reflects thin content rather than disciplined editing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists and the single parameter is fully documented, so the structural gaps are small. What's missing is behavioral context for a destructive mutation: outcome on a no-op call, error conditions, and any side effects on the assignee.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage with a clear description. The description adds no extra meaning about ID format, scope, or validity, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 description has a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('the assignee from a feature request'), so the operation is unmistakable and clearly the inverse of the sibling assign_feature_request. It does not explicitly name that sibling as an alternative, which keeps 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 Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus assign_feature_request or update_feature_request, and no mention of preconditions such as what happens if the request is currently unassigned. The agent must infer the entire usage context from the tool name alone.

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

All FeatureOS 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.