Unlink a project from a team. Find both by name or ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team_id | No | Team ID (optional if team_name is provided) | |
| team_name | No | Team name (optional if team_id is provided) | |
| project_id | No | Project ID (optional if project_name is provided) | |
| project_name | No | Project name (optional if project_id is provided) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action and lookup method, but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, permission requirements, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no verbiage. It is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately follows with the lookup method. 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?
Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is minimal but inadequate. It does not state that both team and project identifiers are required, what happens if either entity is not found, or any side effects of unlinking. The lack of annotations and output schema make these gaps more impactful.
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 already provides detailed descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context by noting 'Find both by name or ID,' which aligns with the parameter structure but does not clarify mutual exclusions or required combinations (e.g., that team_id and team_name are alternatives, not both required).
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 clearly states the action with a specific verb and resource: 'Unlink a project from a team.' It also mentions the method of identifying entities ('Find both by name or ID'), which helps distinguish it from the sibling tool 'link_team_project'.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool (to remove a project from a team), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It lacks guidance on when to use this versus link_team_project, or what to do if the project is already unlinked.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct resource+action pairs (e.g., create_task vs update_task vs delete_task), but the large number of list/get/search tools creates some potential confusion, especially between get_context, search_entities, and find_documents. Descriptions are detailed and help, but the volume makes navigation less clear.
The majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, list_, update_, etc.), with clear prefixes like add/remove and link/unlink. Deviations like 'whoami', 'find_documents' vs 'search_entities', and 'setup_organization' prevent a perfect score.
62 tools is far beyond the typical MCP server scope and overwhelms agents with too many choices. Even if each tool is individually useful, the sheer count makes it difficult for an agent to efficiently select the right tool, increasing the likelihood of misselection.
The domain is well covered for projects, tasks, teams, sessions, and notifications, but there are notable gaps: no update_document, no get_task (only list/update/delete), no get_user, no reject_invite, and sprint management lacks update/delete operations. Core CRUD is present for many entities, but not all.
