Capable

Unlink contact from account

remove_account_contact

Destructive

Unlink a contact from an account (the contact and the account themselves are kept). Hard-deletes the M2M row — there's no historical value to preserving an ended role. DESTRUCTIVE: confirm with the user first, then call again with confirm: true.

When to use: When someone leaves the company or their role ends.

Example: Remove Mark from the Acme contact list — he's left the company.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	No	Boolean (true/false).
`account_id`	Yes	A uuid.
`contact_id`	Yes	A uuid.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`removed`	No
`account_id`	No
`contact_id`	No
`requires_confirm`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 24, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / confirm / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / confirm / type

Added value: +[
+  "boolean",
+  "string",
+  "number"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedOct 20, 2026
- removedInput schema / $schema
```
Removed value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
```

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 19, 2026

removedOutput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -{}
```

removedOutput schema / properties / account_id / pattern

Removed value: -"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"

removedOutput schema / properties / contact_id / pattern

Removed value: -"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"

First observedOct 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, yet the description adds genuinely new information: the M2M row is hard-deleted with no history retained, and invocation requires a two-step confirm-then-retry flow with confirm: true. That confirmation protocol is not visible anywhere in the annotations or schema and is critical to calling the tool correctly.

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-loads the destructive warning and confirm protocol before the usage guidance and example, which is the right ordering for a destructive tool. The aside justifying why no history is kept ('there's no historical value...') is mild filler but does reinforce intent.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only needs to cover intent and the confirmation flow, which it does fully. An agent has everything needed to call this safely without opening the schema.

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 confirm parameter by explaining the two-step safety protocol, which the schema's bare 'Boolean (true/false)' does not convey. account_id and contact_id semantics are still left to the schema.

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+resource pair ('Unlink a contact from an account') and immediately disambiguates scope by clarifying that the contact and account records themselves are kept. This clearly separates it from the sibling add_account_contact and from delete_record, which an agent could otherwise confuse it with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides an explicit 'When to use' trigger (person leaves the company or their role ends) plus a concrete example. It does not name the inverse tool (add_account_contact) or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear enough to act on.

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

All Capable 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?