Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
machship-mcp

machship-mcp

by devkindhq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Unlink Identities from Companies

machship_unlink_identities_from_companies

Revoke company access from identities by unlinking specified identity and company ID pairs. Use it to remove existing identity-company associations in Machship.

Instructions

Remove company access from identities. Each entry specifies an identity and the company to revoke access from.

Args:

  • unlinks (array): Array of objects with identityId and companyId to unlink

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
unlinksYesIdentity-company pairs to unlink

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorsNoValidation errors returned by Machship, if any
objectNoResponse payload from the Machship API

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.0.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / unlinks / items / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / unlinks / items / properties / companyId / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / unlinks / items / properties / identityId / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • 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"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description does not need to repeat it. It adds no behavioral context of its own, however: it does not say whether unlinks are reversible, whether re-linking restores prior state, whether non-existent links error or are ignored, or whether the operation is atomic across the batch. Minimum viable against the annotation coverage.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the second sentence explains the entry shape; no filler. The Args block duplicates schema content but is short enough not to be noise.

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?

For a single-argument batch tool with a fully documented schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers enough to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is failure/atomicity semantics, which matters but is a modest omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 array and both nested fields already documented ('Identity-company pairs to unlink', 'Company ID to remove access from', 'Identity ID'). The Args block in the description largely restates this, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema's minItems: 1 and additionalProperties: false.

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 ('Remove company access from identities') that an agent can distinguish from the inverse sibling machship_link_identities_to_companies, and hints at batch semantics via 'Each entry'. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (admin/owner permission), no statement of what happens on partial failure, and no explicit disambiguation from related tools such as machship_disable_identities, machship_delete_identities, or machship_remove_organisation_link. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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