Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Gameball MCP Server

Gameball MCP Server

by Ahmedelmonady
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

removeCustomerTag

Delete a tag from a customer's record. Provide customer ID and tag name to remove the tag in Gameball.

Instructions

🔒 Delete tag

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": {
      "customerId": "<customerId>",
      "tag": "<tag>"
    },
    "name": "removeCustomerTag"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagYestag
customerIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete tag', which implies a mutation but gives no details about side effects, irreversibility, permissions, or error conditions. The lock emoji is unclear and unexplained.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short ('🔒 Delete tag') and could be considered under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks enough structure to be useful, and the emoji adds no clarity.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a mutation tool with 2 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the operation's context, return value, or consequences, leaving the agent without essential information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50% (only 'tag' has a description, and it's just 'tag'). The description does not compensate; it doesn't explain what 'customerId' represents or the format/scope of 'tag'. For a 2-parameter tool, this is insufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a verb ('Delete') and resource ('tag'), but it is vague—doesn't specify 'customer' or that it removes a tag from a specific customer. The name 'removeCustomerTag' implies the customer context, but the description omits it, making it ambiguous. It also fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'removeCustomerTags'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'attachCustomerTags' or 'removeCustomerTags'. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or appropriate contexts.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools