Skip to main content
Glama
theagoralabs

Theagora MCP Server

by theagoralabs

unlink_identity

DestructiveIdempotent

Disconnect your on-chain agent identity from Theagora to stop reputation writes and remove identity links, incrementing the nonce to invalidate pending signatures.

Instructions

Unlink your ERC-8004 on-chain agent identity from your Theagora account. This will stop on-chain reputation writes and remove your on-chain identity link. The nonce is incremented to invalidate any pending signatures.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The unlinkIdentity() method implements the actual API logic by making a DELETE request to /agents/link-identity endpoint to remove the ERC-8004 on-chain identity link.
    async unlinkIdentity(): Promise<any> {
      return this.request('/agents/link-identity', { method: 'DELETE' });
    }
  • Registration of the 'unlink_identity' tool with the MCP server. The tool accepts no parameters, is marked as destructive and idempotent, and calls the client.unlinkIdentity() method.
    // unlink_identity — Remove ERC-8004 on-chain identity link
    server.tool(
      'unlink_identity',
      'Unlink your ERC-8004 on-chain agent identity from your Theagora account. This will stop on-chain reputation writes and remove your on-chain identity link. The nonce is incremented to invalidate any pending signatures.',
      {},
      { destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true },
      async () => {
        const result = await client.unlinkIdentity();
        return {
          content: [{ type: 'text' as const, text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
        };
      }
    );
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains that unlink stops reputation writes and invalidates pending signatures via nonce increment. While annotations already indicate it's destructive and idempotent, the description elaborates on the specific consequences (reputation writes stop, signatures invalidated), enhancing transparency without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by two concise sentences detailing the effects. Every sentence earns its place by explaining key outcomes (stopping writes, removing link, invalidating signatures) without any fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (destructive operation with no parameters) and the presence of annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description is mostly complete. It explains the main effects but doesn't cover potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens to existing on-chain data, which could be useful for a destructive tool. No output schema exists, but the description doesn't need to specify return values for this action-oriented tool.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it implicitly confirms there are no required inputs by focusing on the action's effects rather than parameter details, which is appropriate and adds no unnecessary information.

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 clearly states the specific action ('unlink'), the resource ('ERC-8004 on-chain agent identity'), and the target system ('your Theagora account'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'link_identity' by describing the opposite operation, making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool: when you want to stop on-chain reputation writes and remove your on-chain identity link. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives, such as what happens if you later want to re-link, which prevents a perfect score.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/theagoralabs/mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server