Gambit

Remove a ticker from a theme

remove_from_theme

Destructive

Remove one ticker from one of YOUR themes (requires api:account), whatever added it. If the theme opened a Gambit for it, that Gambit is stopped, unless another active theme of the user tracks the same ticker; the user's own Gambits are never stopped. A rule member removed here stays out until the rule is compiled again. symbol is the ticker (MU, xyz:MU) or the member's subject_id from get_theme (asset:equity:MU). Returns the theme as get_theme does, plus subject_id. Confirm with the user first. Errors: 404 theme_not_found or member_not_found; 409 theme_archived; 422 unknown_symbol or ambiguous_symbol; 503 themes_disabled.

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": {
      "theme_id": "<theme_id>",
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "remove_from_theme"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbol`	Yes	the ticker or the member's subject_id
`theme_id`	Yes	a theme id from list_themes (UUID)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations by disclosing the cascade: Gambits opened by the theme are stopped unless another active theme tracks the ticker, and the user's own Gambits are never stopped. It also explains the persistence semantics of rule members ("stays out until the rule is compiled again") and enumerates failure codes, giving the agent the full consequence model of a destructive call.

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 action, then cascading effects, then accepted input forms, return value, confirmation, and errors in a sensible order. It is dense and long-ish, but nearly every clause carries distinct operational information; only the error enumeration feels slightly list-like for a description body.

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?

With no output schema, the description explicitly states the return shape ("the theme as get_theme does, plus subject_id") and covers prerequisite auth, confirmation policy, cascade side effects, and all error conditions. An agent can call this correctly without consulting anything else.

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 both parameters are already documented, yet the description adds real meaning: symbol accepts a raw ticker (MU), a namespaced ticker (xyz:MU), or a subject_id (asset:equity:MU) sourced from get_theme. That resolves ambiguity the pattern regex alone cannot, though theme_id adds nothing beyond the schema's "a theme id from list_themes".

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and scope: "Remove one ticker from one of YOUR themes." It is immediately distinguishable from add_to_theme and from get_theme, and it clarifies that the removal applies "whatever added it," which preempts a likely confusion about manual vs. rule membership.

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 a concrete operational prerequisite ("requires api:account") and an explicit procedural instruction ("Confirm with the user first"), which is exactly what an agent needs for a destructive tool. It does not name add_to_theme or any sibling as the inverse operation, so routing is strong but not exhaustively explicit.

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

All Gambit 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?