Skip to main content
Glama
soil-dev

capsulemcp

by soil-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

remove_party_email_address_by_id

Delete an email-address row from a party by its Capsule ID. Use it to replace an old entry: remove the ID, then add the new email address; the operation is atomic and reversible.

Instructions

Remove one email-address entry from a party by its row id. Atomic and reversible — no confirm: true gate (re-add with add_party_email_address). Discover the id via get_party — each entry in the emailAddresses array carries one. Use this to replace an existing entry: remove the old id, then call add_party_email_address with the new value (any associated server-side metadata on the old row is discarded along with the row). Idempotent on retry: response is {removed: true, alreadyRemoved: false, partyId, emailAddressId, party} on a fresh remove (the updated party shape is included) or {removed: true, alreadyRemoved: true, partyId, emailAddressId} if the row was already gone (Capsule's 404 is caught).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partyIdYes
emailAddressIdYesCapsule's id for the email-address row. Read it from get_party (each entry in emailAddresses carries an id).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With annotations limited to readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description carries the behavioral burden and excels: it discloses atomicity, reversibility, the absence of a confirm:true gate, idempotency on retry, exact response shapes for both fresh and already-removed cases, Capsule's 404 being caught, and the side effect that server-side metadata on the old row is discarded. This is far beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

The description is dense — roughly four sentences — but each clause earns its place given the tool's genuinely complex behavior (idempotency, dual response shapes, metadata side effects, error handling). It is front-loaded with the core purpose before layering workflow and idempotency details; only minor restructuring could tighten it further.

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 and thin annotations, the description must explain return values and it does so exhaustively, covering both success shapes and the caught-404 case. For a two-parameter removal tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly or interpret its response is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50% (partyId has no schema description), and the description compensates by explaining how to obtain both values: the id is discovered via get_party, where each entry in the emailAddresses array carries one. This adds concrete provenance for the parameters that the sparse schema lacks.

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 opening sentence, 'Remove one email-address entry from a party by its row id,' names a specific verb, resource, and identifier mechanism. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling removal tools like remove_party_phone_number_by_id and remove_party_address_by_id without needing to open any other schema.

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 gives an explicit replacement workflow — 'remove the old id, then call add_party_email_address with the new value' — and names get_party as the discovery mechanism for the id. It clearly establishes when to use this tool as a step, though it stops short of explicitly listing exclusion cases or comparing against the phone/address/website removal 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