Skip to main content
Glama

remove_intent_card

Remove your networking card from the Mingle MCP server when your needs change, allowing you to publish a new one when ready.

Instructions

Remove your card from the network. Use when your situation changed. Publish a new one when ready.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
card_idYesCard ID to remove

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for remove_intent_card tool that deletes a card from the network via API call, signing the request with the agent's private key
    async (args) => {
      try {
        const result = await api(`/api/cards/${args.card_id}`, {
          method: "DELETE",
          body: JSON.stringify({
            agentId,
            publicKey: keys.publicKey,
            signature: sign(args.card_id, keys.privateKey),
          }),
        });
    
        return {
          content: [{
            type: "text" as const,
            text: JSON.stringify({
              removed: result.removed || false,
              cardId: args.card_id,
              error: result.error,
            }, null, 2),
          }],
        };
      } catch (e: any) {
        return { content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: `Network error: ${e.message}` }], isError: true };
      }
    }
  • src/index.ts:288-319 (registration)
    Registration of the remove_intent_card tool using server.tool() with name, description, schema, and handler function
    server.tool(
      "remove_intent_card",
      "Remove your card from the network. Use when your situation changed. Publish a new one when ready.",
      {
        card_id: z.string().describe("Card ID to remove"),
      },
      async (args) => {
        try {
          const result = await api(`/api/cards/${args.card_id}`, {
            method: "DELETE",
            body: JSON.stringify({
              agentId,
              publicKey: keys.publicKey,
              signature: sign(args.card_id, keys.privateKey),
            }),
          });
    
          return {
            content: [{
              type: "text" as const,
              text: JSON.stringify({
                removed: result.removed || false,
                cardId: args.card_id,
                error: result.error,
              }, null, 2),
            }],
          };
        } catch (e: any) {
          return { content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: `Network error: ${e.message}` }], isError: true };
        }
      }
    );
  • Input schema definition using Zod: card_id as a required string parameter
    {
      card_id: z.string().describe("Card ID to remove"),
    },
  • Helper function 'api' that makes authenticated HTTP requests to the Mingle API with agent headers
    async function api(path: string, opts?: RequestInit): Promise<any> {
      const res = await fetch(`${API}${path}`, {
        ...opts,
        headers: {
          "Content-Type": "application/json",
          "X-Agent-Id": agentId,
          "X-Public-Key": keys.publicKey,
          ...opts?.headers,
        },
      });
      return res.json();
    }
  • Imports including 'sign' function from agent-passport-system used for cryptographic signing of requests
    import { McpServer } from "@modelcontextprotocol/sdk/server/mcp.js";
    import { StdioServerTransport } from "@modelcontextprotocol/sdk/server/stdio.js";
    import { z } from "zod";
    import { generateKeyPair, createIntentCard, sign } from "agent-passport-system";
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a destructive operation ('Remove') but doesn't specify whether this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., impact on existing intros or matches). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place by stating the purpose and usage context without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, permissions) and output. It's adequate for a simple tool but has clear gaps in transparency.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'card_id' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what a 'card' is or where to find the ID). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Remove your card from the network') and resource ('card'), with a specific verb+resource combination. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'publish_intent_card' or 'request_intro', but the purpose is unambiguous for this destructive operation.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Use when your situation changed') and hints at an alternative ('Publish a new one when ready'), though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tool 'publish_intent_card' as the alternative. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons with other siblings like 'respond_to_intro'.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/aeoess/mingle-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server