machship-mcp

Remove Organisation Link

machship_remove_organisation_link

Destructive

Removes the link between two organisations using an organisation link ID. Use it to dissolve an existing organisation relationship, noting the unlinking action cannot be undone.

Instructions

Removes an existing link between two organisations. This action is irreversible.

Args:

request (object): Unlink request with organisationLinkId to remove

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes	Unlink request (organisationLinkId)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`errors`	No	Validation errors returned by Machship, if any
`object`	No	Response payload from the Machship API

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.1Nov 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / request / propertyNames
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "errors": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "items": {},
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "Validation errors returned by Machship, if any"
+    },
+    "object": {
+      "description": "Response payload from the Machship API"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.0.0Jun 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so 'This action is irreversible' largely restates what the structured data says. It adds no context about required authorisation, what happens to downstream links or consignments tied to the removed link, or whether the operation can be undone via add_organisation_link.

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?

Two short sentences plus an Args block — front-loaded with the action and the risk warning. The Args section mostly repeats the schema, but it is brief enough not to be a burden.

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?

Output schema and annotations are supplied, so return values and safety profile need no explanation. However, for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation the description omits how to obtain the organisationLinkId and what collateral effects removal has, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 coverage is nominally 100%, but the single parameter is an opaque object with additionalProperties: {} whose only documented field appears in the description text. Naming organisationLinkId as the value to supply is genuinely useful, but no format, source, or example for that ID is given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Removes an existing link between two organisations'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling machship_add_organisation_link. It does not explicitly name the counterpart tool, but the add/remove pairing is unambiguous.

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?

The description says nothing about when an agent should unlink organisations, what prerequisites or permissions are required, or which sibling to consult first (e.g. get_organisation_links to find the organisationLinkId). The only guidance offered is the irreversibility warning.

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

Deploy Server