GravityPort

stack_dissolve

Destructive

Dissolve a stack to return its assets to the library as separate items without deleting or archiving them; assets are not restacked automatically.

Instructions

Dissolve a stack: its assets return to the library as separate assets; nothing is deleted or archived. They are not stacked again automatically.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "stackId": "<stackId>"
    },
    "name": "stack_dissolve"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`stackId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.11Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds the crucial scope of that destruction — the stack is dismantled while its assets survive as separate assets, nothing is deleted or archived. It also discloses the irreversibility nuance that assets are not re-stacked automatically. It does not contradict the destructive annotation; it clarifies precisely what is destroyed and what is not.

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?

Two short sentences, effect first, caveat second; every clause carries information (outcome, non-destructive guarantee, no auto-restack) with no filler.

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-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the essential outcome and the irreversibility caveat. Minor gaps: it doesn't say whether the stack itself disappears afterward or what errors occur on an invalid stackId.

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?

Only one parameter (stackId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description would need to compensate. It never mentions the parameter, though the meaning of "which stack to dissolve" is strongly implied by the verb. Adequate but not additive.

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 ("Dissolve a stack") and immediately describes the resulting state: assets become separate library assets. This implicitly distinguishes it from stack_remove_assets, since nothing is deleted or archived, but no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intent (breaking a stack apart while keeping assets) is inferable from the described outcome, so an agent can judge when this applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus stack_remove_assets guidance, no preconditions, and no statement about what happens to the stack container itself.

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