Memory Journal MCP Server

Remove Author Alias

team_remove_author_alias

Destructive

Removes an author alias mapping for a workspace, requiring admin role. Use it to clean up or correct team author identity mappings.

Instructions

Remove an author alias mapping. Requires admin role.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`alias`	Yes	The alias mapping to remove
`workspace_id`	No	Optional workspace isolation identifier (e.g. "alpha"). Do not use numeric project IDs or "workspace" as the key.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	Error code (e.g. VALIDATION_ERROR, INTERNAL_ERROR)
`error`	No	Human-readable error message
`details`	No	Additional error context
`success`	No
`category`	No	Error category (validation, query, connection, internal)
`suggestion`	No	Suggested fix for the error
`recoverable`	No	Whether the error is recoverable
`aggregated_errors`	No	Details of individual errors in a multi-step operation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv9.0.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds the necessary context of 'Requires admin role,' which is a functional trait not covered by the hints. While it confirms the destructive nature via the hints, the description adds practical operational limitations.

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?

It is highly concise and perfectly structured, consisting of two minimal sentences that front-load the essential purpose and a critical usage prerequisite.

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?

Given that the input schema is complete and annotations provide the safety context, the description successfully covers the essential operational constraints an agent needs to decide whether to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema is 100% covered, meaning the schema itself provides rich descriptions for the parameters. The description primarily restates the action rather than clarifying parameter semantics.

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?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Remove an author alias mapping') and the target resource. It is specific and distinct from related operations like 'add author alias.'

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?

It provides one critical usage constraint ('Requires admin role'), which tells the agent *when* it is allowed to use the tool. However, it offers no guidance on when to use it versus other alias tools.

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

Deploy Server