flayr

Remove an item from a queue

remove_queue_item

DestructiveIdempotent

[DESTRUCTIVE] DESTRUCTIVE: removes an item (the draft stays in the library). A booked (scheduled) item is refused (409) unless unschedule: true, which deletes its platform post first. Needs the publish scope (or admin) on the Agency plan or higher. (Wraps DELETE /api/v2/queues/{id}/items/{itemId}.)

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>",
      "itemId": "<itemId>"
    },
    "name": "remove_queue_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`itemId`	Yes
`brandId`	No	Account-wide keys: "personal" or an id from GET /api/v2/brands (omitted → the brand last active in the dashboard). A brand-bound key always uses its own brand.
`unschedule`	No	true: delete the booked post at the platform first (the dashboard's "Unschedule"), then delete. Without it a booked post is a 409 — nothing is ever left booked at the platform without its queue item.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining that the draft survives, that a scheduled item returns 409 unless unschedule is set, and that unschedule deletes the platform post first. It also discloses auth scope and plan requirements, which are material behavioral constraints.

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 important destructive warning and 409/unschedule behavior are front-loaded. The only notable waste is the redundant '[DESTRUCTIVE] DESTRUCTIVE:' phrasing, but the rest is dense and relevant.

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 mutation with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers the critical edge cases: draft preservation, booked-item refusal, platform post deletion via unschedule, and authorization requirements. An agent has enough information to call it correctly without needing more prose.

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?

The schema already documents brandId and unschedule, but the description adds useful meaning by tying id and itemId to the DELETE /queues/{id}/items/{itemId} endpoint and by reinforcing that the queue item is removed while the draft remains. It does not add much beyond the schema for brandId, but overall it improves parameter interpretation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: removes an item from a queue, and clarifies that the draft itself stays in the library. This is clear enough to distinguish it from content deletion, but it does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings such as queue_item_action or cancel_scheduled_post.

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?

Gives useful conditions: booked items are refused unless unschedule is true, and the call requires publish scope or admin on the Agency plan. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over adjacent tools like queue_item_action, so the guidance is strong but not fully alternative-aware.

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

All flayr 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?