GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_auth_unbind

DestructiveIdempotent

Removes a project binding and switches that project back to active-account token resolution.

Instructions

Remove the binding for . Falls back to active-account token resolution for that project afterwards.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project": "<project>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_auth_unbind"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`raw`	No	Return the full, un-slimmed GitFlic response for THIS call (no token compression). Use when the default slim view dropped a field you need.
`project`	Yes	owner/alias to unbind

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds genuine post-condition context not present in the annotations: that the project will subsequently resolve tokens from the active account. However, for a destructiveHint=true operation it never says whether stored credentials are deleted, whether other bindings are affected, or what confirmation/preconditions apply.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the action is front-loaded and the consequence follows immediately. The angle-bracket placeholder is the only mildly ambiguous element.

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?

A two-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations that already declare destructiveness and idempotency. The description covers the action plus the resulting auth state, which is what an agent needs; granular detail about credential removal would be the only addition.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both 'project' and 'raw' are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the <project> identifier without adding format or resolution detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Remove') on a specific resource ('the binding for <project>'), which an agent can distinguish from the sibling bind tool. It stops short of naming or contrasting with gitflic_auth_bind/gitflic_auth_bindings explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the inverse relationship to binding and by the stated fallback behavior ('Falls back to active-account token resolution for that project afterwards'). There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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

Deploy Server