plaid-mcp

remove_institution_tool

Unlink a Plaid institution and delete its local data, removing the item connection and stored records.

Instructions

Unlink an institution (Plaid item) and delete its local data.

Plaid-only.

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": {
      "item_id": "<item_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_institution_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`item_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that local data is deleted, which is an important destructive side effect beyond simply 'unlinking.' It does not mention reversibility or permissions, but the main risk is disclosed.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and adds the important destructive detail in the same sentence. The standalone 'Plaid-only.' line is minimal but useful context with no wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description conveys the core action and side effect. However, it omits any explanation of item_id provenance or expected format, and offers no guidance on what happens after unlinking or what response to expect.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explicitly explain the item_id parameter. However, the description's mention of 'Plaid item' and the parameter name 'item_id' make it reasonably inferable that item_id identifies the institution to unlink.

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 uses a specific verb ('Unlink') and resource ('institution (Plaid item)'), and adds a concrete consequence ('delete its local data'). This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like link_account or remove_external_debt_tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'Plaid-only' provides a constraint on when the tool applies, and the action itself implies it is for unlinking a linked institution. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to choose, such as remove_external_debt_tool for non-Plaid debts.

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