remove_contact_from_listsRemove selected contacts from a specific email list by providing list ID and contact IDs. Clean up lists and keep your audience organized.
Remove contacts from a specific email list
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list_id | Yes | ID of the list to remove contacts from | |
| contact_ids | Yes | Array of contact IDs to remove from the list |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent operation that is not destructive to underlying data (destructiveHint=false). The description adds only that it removes contacts from a specific list, which aligns with the annotations. It does not add extra behavioral context such as whether already-removed contacts are ignored, but the idempotentHint covers part of that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement. Every word contributes to identifying the action, target, and scope, making it highly scannable for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter operation with full schema coverage, no output schema, and relevant annotations for idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description is largely complete. It could explicitly state that the contacts themselves are not deleted, but the phrase 'remove contacts from a specific email list' makes that distinction reasonably clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: the schema already documents list_id as the target list and contact_ids as the array of contact IDs to remove. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the phrase 'specific email list', so the schema carries the burden and the description meets the baseline without exceeding it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Remove'), a specific object ('contacts'), and the scope ('from a specific email list'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like delete_contact, create_contact_with_lists, and list_contacts, so an agent can understand what it does without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as delete_contact, update_contact, or create_contact_with_lists. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or the relationship to sibling contact/list tools, so the agent is left to infer the appropriate usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.