Skip to main content
Glama
soil-dev

capsulemcp

by soil-dev

remove_party_address_by_id

Remove a specific address from a party by its row ID. Get the ID from get_party, then delete the entry; retrying reports alreadyRemoved to keep operations idempotent.

Instructions

Remove one address entry from a party by its row id. Atomic and reversible — no confirm: true gate (re-add with add_party_address). Discover the id via get_party. Idempotent on retry: response is {removed: true, alreadyRemoved: false, partyId, addressId, party} on a fresh remove or {removed: true, alreadyRemoved: true, partyId, addressId} if the row was already gone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partyIdYes
addressIdYesCapsule's id for the address row. Read it from get_party (each entry in addresses carries an id).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.3.0
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
      +  "partyId",
      +  "addressId"
      +]
  2. Addedv1.7.0
  3. Removedv1.6.2
  4. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses atomicity, reversibility, the absence of a confirm gate, idempotent retry behavior, and the exact response shape for both fresh and already-removed cases. This substantially exceeds the annotations and is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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?

Each sentence earns its place: purpose, atomicity/reversibility, id discovery, and response semantics. The inline response examples are justified because there is no output schema.

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?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema mutating tool, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, reversal, and return values. Only the partyId semantics are thin, and that is minor given the rest of the context.

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?

addressId is well explained both in the schema and through the get_party discovery instruction. However, partyId has no schema description and the description never defines how to find or use it, leaving a real gap at 50% schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove one address entry from a party by its row id.' This distinguishes it from sibling address/email/phone/website removers and says exactly what is operated on.

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?

It gives clear workflow context: discover the id via get_party and re-add with add_party_address. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use alternatives, but the address-specific scope and named re-add alternative make the intended usage clear.

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