GravityPort

stack_remove_assets

Destructive

Remove assets from a GravityPort stack while keeping them in your library. Fails with ASSET_NOT_IN_STACK if any ID isn't in the stack, and dissolves stacks left with one asset.

Instructions

Take assets out of a stack; the assets stay in the library. Every assetId must belong to this stack, otherwise the call fails with ASSET_NOT_IN_STACK and nothing changes. A stack left with one asset is dissolved (dissolved: true). Assets taken out 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>",
      "assetIds": "<assetIds>"
    },
    "name": "stack_remove_assets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`stackId`	Yes
`assetIds`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.11Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the description's real contribution is the failure semantics: the call is atomic, returning ASSET_NOT_IN_STACK with 'nothing changes' if any assetId is foreign. It also discloses the edge case that a stack reduced to one asset is dissolved, which an agent could not predict from annotations alone.

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?

Four short sentences, each contributing a distinct fact: scope, atomicity/error behavior, dissolution edge case, and non-restacking behavior. The core effect is front-loaded with zero 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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers failure modes and the one notable return field (dissolved: true). It omits batch-size limits and permission requirements, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does add meaning: assetIds must all belong to the given stack, and the operation is batch-oriented. It does not explain stackId format or the 2000-item cap, leaving some schema gaps unfilled.

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 ('Take assets out of a stack') and immediately clarifies the non-obvious consequence that assets remain in the library, which distinguishes it from trashing. It never names the sibling stack_add_assets as its inverse, but the operation is unambiguous on its own.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation (use this to detach assets from a stack), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as stack_dissolve for removing the whole stack. An agent must infer the selection criteria.

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