getcourse-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gc_remove_from_mailing_category

Remove a user from a mailing category using their email and category ID. Prevents unwanted emails by managing subscription categories.

Instructions

Убрать пользователя из категории рассылок (по categoryId).

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": {
      "email": "<email>",
      "categoryId": "<categoryId>"
    },
    "name": "gc_remove_from_mailing_category"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	Email пользователя.
`categoryId`	Yes	ID категории рассылок (см. gc_list_mailing_categories).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description only says 'remove', which implies mutation but lacks details on consequences, permissions, or reversibility. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence with no unnecessary words. Efficient but could benefit from a brief outcome note.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lacks crucial details like success indicators or error scenarios. It is minimally complete.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds minimal value by restating 'by categoryId', but does not provide additional context beyond schema.

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 states the action (remove) and resource (mailing category by categoryId). It distinguishes from siblings like gc_add_to_mailing_category as the inverse operation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gc_remove_from_groups, gc_check_membership). An agent must infer context from sibling names.

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