manychat_untag_subscriberRemove a tag from a subscriber in ManyChat by providing the subscriber ID and tag name. Keep subscriber data organized by eliminating unwanted tags.
Remove a tag from a subscriber by tag name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag_name | Yes | Tag name to remove | |
| subscriber_id | Yes | ManyChat subscriber ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=false annotation already indicates mutation, and destructiveHint=false indicates non-destructive behavior. The description restates the removal action but adds no extra behavioral context such as idempotency, behavior when the tag is not assigned, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence with no filler. It leads with the action and includes the key targeting detail, so every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations declaring non-read-only/non-destructive behavior, the description is sufficient for basic invocation. It lacks alternative routing and edge-case behavior, but those are already reflected in the usage guidance and behavioral transparency scores.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% parameter coverage, so the description does not need to compensate. 'By tag name' modestly reinforces the tag_name parameter but adds no formatting, constraints, or semantic details beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Remove') and identifies the resource ('tag from a subscriber'), with 'by tag name' clarifying what identifies the tag. It clearly conveys an untag operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling manychat_tag_subscriber tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as manychat_tag_subscriber or manychat_list_tags. The intended use is implied by the verb, but there are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or routing conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.