Skip to main content
Glama

Hermoso

by io.github.hermoso-ai

Remove my own account from a shared connection

leave_connector
DestructiveIdempotent

On a connector that several teammates can contribute their OWN account to (see list_connectors — the row reports multiContributor), remove YOURS from this brand: your stored credential is dropped and the accounts you shared stop being shared. Your teammates' accounts on the same connection keep working, and nothing changes at the provider — reconnecting in a browser shares again. Use this instead of disconnect_connector when the connection is not yours to remove: disconnect_connector revokes the grant at the provider and only the person who created the connection may call it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
providerYesprovider id exactly as list_connectors reports it, e.g. "linkedin", "tiktok_ads", "meta"

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint false), the description details the precise scope: only the user's own credential is dropped, teammates' accounts remain, provider unchanged, and reconnecting in a browser restores sharing. This adds valuable behavioral context annotations do not convey, such as reversibility and effect on others.

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 description is three sentences, each packing relevant information: effect on self, effect on others/provider, and usage directive. It is slightly longer but information-dense, with critical info front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given a single-parameter destructive operation with annotations covering safety and a clear explanation of side effects and prerequisites (checking list_connectors), the description is fully adequate. No missing details an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema already describes the 'provider' parameter with examples and reference to list_connectors, so coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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?

The description states exactly what the tool does: removes the user's own account from a shared connection, dropping stored credentials and stopping shared accounts. It clearly distinguishes from disconnect_connector by explaining the difference in effect and ownership, so an agent can tell them apart 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 instructs to use this tool instead of disconnect_connector when the connection is not yours to remove, and references list_connectors to determine multiContributor status. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including an alternative and its prerequisite.

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

All Hermoso toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

With 293 tools, the surface is enormous and many tools have overlapping purposes—multiple posting tools (post_to_meta, post_to_linkedin, schedule_post, etc.), multiple analytics tools per channel, and several search tools (search_meta_ads, search_instagram, search_reddit...). While each description is detailed, the volume makes it difficult for an agent to reliably distinguish between similar tools without careful reading, leading to frequent misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is largely consistent with a verb_noun pattern (post_to_*, list_*, create_*, delete_*, update_*, manage_*). There are clear families for major operations. A few outliers like 'google_business_account', 'hermoso_capabilities', and 'store_get' break the pattern, but the overwhelming majority follow a predictable structure, making navigation somewhat easier.

Tool Count1/5

293 tools is far beyond any reasonable scope for a single MCP server, even for a comprehensive marketing platform. The calibration guide flags 50+ as an extreme mismatch, and this is nearly six times that threshold. Such a large surface overwhelms context windows, increases the probability of misselection, and makes it impractical for agents to learn or use effectively.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a vast domain: ad creation and rendering, posting across nine+ social channels, analytics and reporting, file management (Drive/OneDrive), competitor research, brand management, and more. It appears to provide CRUD and lifecycle coverage for most resources. While there may be minor gaps given the immense scope, the overall coverage is impressively comprehensive.

Resources