AccountHub

leave_shared_project

Destructive

Leave an AccountHub shared project (shared project) — a group chat — NOT a Slack workspace; or decline a pending invitation to one. You lose access at once; the other members see " left" in the conversation; items you were assigned that are still open become unassigned (recorded, the requester is told), and items you placed stay. If you are the owner, ownership passes to the member who joined earliest after you and they are told (new_owner_user_id). Refused for a one-to-one chat (direct_chat_not_leavable — archive it instead) and when you are the last member (chat_group_last_member — use delete_shared_project). Declining an invitation is always allowed.

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_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "leave_shared_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes	The shared project to leave (from list_shared_projects).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true; the description goes far beyond by disclosing immediate loss of access, the "<you> left" system message other members see, that open items assigned to you become unassigned, that items you placed remain, and that ownership transfers to the earliest-joined member with the new owner surfaced as new_owner_user_id. Refusal conditions are enumerated with their error identifiers.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the Slack-workspace disambiguation before consequences and refusals. The final sentence is a dense run-on packing three side effects plus an ownership rule, which slows parsing slightly though no clause is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the meaningful response facts (new_owner_user_id, requester notification) and covers every failure mode with named error codes. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this mutation safely is missing.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents project_id and its provenance (list_shared_projects). The description's only added nuance is that the same project_id also covers a pending invitation, which it conveys indirectly rather than stating that the parameter accepts an invitation target.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Leave an AccountHub shared project") and immediately disambiguates the resource as a group chat rather than a Slack workspace. It also folds in the second supported operation — declining a pending invitation — so an agent knows both actions map to this tool.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool in two named cases: one-to-one chats should be archived instead, and the last member must use delete_shared_project. Both refusal codes (direct_chat_not_leavable, chat_group_last_member) are given so the agent can recognize and recover from a wrong call.

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

All AccountHub tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?