Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
civicrm-mcp

civicrm-mcp

by YogiAdhik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Remove contact from group

civicrm_remove_from_group

Remove a contact from a CiviCRM group by setting status to 'Removed', preserving history without hard deletion.

Instructions

Mark a contact as Removed from a group (GroupContact status='Removed'). Preserves history — does not hard-delete. Requires CIVICRM_ALLOW_WRITES=true.

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": {
      "contact_id": "<contact_id>",
      "group_id": "<group_id>"
    },
    "name": "civicrm_remove_from_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
group_idYesCiviCRM group id (not title).
contact_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation preserves history and is not a hard-delete, but does not detail potential side effects, error conditions, or permission requirements beyond the environment variable. Adequate but minimal.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver essential information without redundancy. Every sentence adds value: action, behavioral note, and requirement.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the main behavior and a requirement, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., what happens if contact is not in group) or return value. It is adequate but could be more thorough.

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 'group_id' has a description. The description does not add any parameter-level information beyond the schema. 'contact_id' remains undocumented, and no clarification is provided on how to obtain valid IDs.

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 explicitly states the action: 'Mark a contact as Removed from a group' and distinguishes it from hard-deletion. It clearly identifies the resource and operation, differentiating from sibling tool 'civicrm_add_to_group'.

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 description mentions a requirement (CIVICRM_ALLOW_WRITES=true) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'civicrm_add_to_group' or other contact management tools. Usage is implied by the purpose but not fully articulated.

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