Casefile

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Remove attribute

remove_attribute

Removes a project attribute while preserving its history in the case file, recording the last value and removal reason. Refuses if the attribute does not exist.

Instructions

Removes a project attribute and files an attribute_removed entry in the project's case with its last value and the reason. The attribute's history stays in the case; a later set_attribute with the same name creates it anew.

A name that matches no attribute of the project is refused with attribute_not_found. A task token removes attributes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`key`	Yes	Project key, case-insensitive. An unknown key is refused with `project_not_found`
`name`	Yes	Attribute name: Latin letters, digits, `_` and `-`, at most 64 characters (`invalid_attribute_name` otherwise). Matching ignores case
`reason`	Yes	Why the attribute is removed; a blank one is refused with `attribute_reason_required`. Filed in the `attribute_removed` entry together with the last value
`idempotency_key`	No	Retry key chosen by the caller, e.g. a UUID. A repeat with the same key and the same arguments returns the first result and creates nothing; the same key with other arguments is refused with `idempotency_key_reused`. A key is bound to the caller's token and kept for 24 hours

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`no`	Yes	Number of the `attribute_removed` entry in the project's case
`name`	Yes	Name as it was stored
`project_key`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.5.2Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the removal is not silent (it files a case entry), history is retained, and the operation is effectively recoverable via a later set_attribute — which coherently explains why destructiveHint=false despite a delete-like verb. The trailing 'A `task` token removes attributes' hints at an auth requirement but is too terse to be fully actionable.

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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the action and side effect, then error behavior. The final sentence about a `task` token is cryptic and slightly detracts from an otherwise tight structure.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers side effects, error codes, history retention and idempotency context. Only the authorization/`task` token statement is underspecified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds behavior not present in the schema: the refusal code for an unknown attribute name and the fact that the last value is persisted alongside the reason.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Removes a project attribute') plus the side effect (files an `attribute_removed` entry in the case with the last value and reason). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling `set_attribute`, which is even named in the text.

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 the failure condition for a non-matching name (`attribute_not_found`) and tells the agent that re-adding requires a separate `set_attribute` call, so the lifecycle is clear. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when X, use set_attribute when Y' routing statement.

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