Skip to main content
Glama
soil-dev

capsulemcp

by soil-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

remove_additional_party

Destructive

Remove an additional-party link between an opportunity or project and a party without deleting the party itself. Requires confirmation and is reversible by re-adding the link.

Instructions

Remove an additional-party link between an opportunity/project and a party. The party itself is NOT deleted. Requires confirm=true. Reversible by re-adding via add_additional_party. Idempotent on retry: response is {removed: true, alreadyRemoved: false, entity, entityId, partyId} on a fresh remove or {removed: true, alreadyRemoved: true, ...} if the link was already gone (Capsule's 404 is caught and converted).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entityYesWhich entity has the additional-party links.
confirmYesMust be set to true. Removes the link between the entity and the additional party. The party itself is not deleted. Reversible by re-adding the link.
partyIdYes
entityIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.3.0
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "entity",
-  "confirm"
-]New value: +[
+  "entity",
+  "entityId",
+  "partyId",
+  "confirm"
+]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / entity / description
      Previous value: -"Which entity has the additional-party links. Use 'kases' for projects."New value: +"Which entity has the additional-party links."
    • changedInput schema / properties / entity / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "opportunities",
-  "kases"
-]New value: +[
+  "opportunities",
+  "projects"
+]
  3. Addedv1.7.0
  4. Removedv1.6.2
  5. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the confirm requirement, reversibility, idempotent retry behavior, exact response shapes for both fresh and already-removed cases, and the internal handling of Capsule's 404. This is rich, behavior-relevant context that an agent would not otherwise know.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the core action and non-deletion caveat, then cover reversal, idempotence, and response details. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of annotation data.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description still fully covers return values, error handling, required confirm flag, and the action's reversible/idempotent nature. An agent has everything needed to invoke this destructive operation correctly, and the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 schema provides descriptions for entity and confirm but leaves partyId and entityId undocumented. The description clarifies that a link exists between an entity and a party, and the response shape includes entityId and partyId, which helps infer their roles. However, it does not directly explain how these IDs map or compensate fully for the missing schema descriptions, so it only partially adds meaning.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('additional-party link between an opportunity/project and a party'), and clarifies what it does NOT do ('The party itself is NOT deleted'). This clearly distinguishes it from delete_party and other remove_* siblings, giving an agent immediate understanding of its scope.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description names the counterpart operation (add_additional_party) as the way to reverse the action, and the 'party itself is NOT deleted' clause implicitly tells the agent it is not for party deletion. It lacks an explicit 'when-not-to-use' statement against other delete/remove tools, but the context is clear enough for correct selection among siblings.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools