action1-mcp-server

Remove an endpoint from an endpoint group

action1_remove_endpoint_from_group

Destructive

Remove one endpoint from an Action1 endpoint group by group ID and endpoint UUID. Use dry-run to preview and confirm with YES to execute.

Instructions

Remove a single endpoint from an endpoint group. POSTs the spec array body [{method:DELETE,endpoint_id}] to /endpoints/groups/{org}/{group}/contents (there is no DELETE verb or /contents/{id} sub-path).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`org_id`	No	Org UUID.
`confirm`	No	Required to execute. Exact string "YES".
`dry_run`	No	Default true (preview). Set false to execute.
`group_id`	Yes	Endpoint group id.
`endpoint_id`	Yes	Endpoint UUID.
`response_format`	No	Output format. Default markdown.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.6.0Oct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedInput schema / properties / endpoint_id / pattern

Previous value: -"^[0-9a-f]{8}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{12}$"New value: +"^[0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}$"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +{}
```

First observedv0.5.0Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the risk profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the undocumented wire behavior (POST with a spec array body, no real DELETE sub-path), which matters if an agent falls back to action1_raw_request. It still says nothing about the execution gating (dry_run defaults to preview, confirm "YES"), which is the riskiest part of actually calling this.

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 sentences, action stated first, implementation caveat second — nothing redundant and 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?

Output schema and annotations carry the return and safety contracts, and the description covers the non-obvious HTTP shape. The only meaningful omission is any mention of the two-step preview/confirm execution model for a destructive tool, which would help an agent avoid an accidental removal.

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%, so all six parameters are documented at the schema level; the description adds no per-parameter meaning. It only documents the serialized request-body shape, which is marginally useful context but not parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (remove) and resource (a single endpoint from an endpoint group), and the scope word 'single' cleanly distinguishes it from bulk/move siblings like action1_add_endpoint_to_group, action1_move_endpoint, or action1_update_endpoint.

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 action described, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over action1_move_endpoint/action1_update_endpoint, nor any mention of the required dry_run/confirm safety flow before a destructive call. An agent must infer the workflow entirely from the schema.

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

Deploy Server