Skip to main content
Glama

elaichi__member__offboarding

Read-onlyIdempotent

Preview what removing a member would break, without changing anything: their personal connections and, per connection, which toolboxes reference it and whether that reference reaches beyond the member. Any connection marked needs_resolution will make member.delete refuse. Separately, delegated_entries lists entries on OTHER members’ toolboxes whose pin currently rides on THIS member’s own "use" grant, not their ownership (docs/access-model.md §6) — non-blocking, and member.delete never refuses over it, but say so: once the member is gone those entries go unmet for everyone until somebody with their own "use" on the connection re-pins them; there is no operation that does that automatically. synthetic_tools lists the multi-step tools they own, as metadata only (name, description, step_count — never the steps, which are private to their author): those cannot be shared or transferred, so every one of them is deleted when the member is removed, and their presence makes member.delete refuse outright — say what will be lost before proposing a removal. toolboxes and templates list what they own of each, with a bounded shared_with rollup (counts plus at most five named grantees, never the whole grant list) and an entry_count: only a resource’s OWNER can transfer or delete it, so one left behind when its owner goes becomes unmanageable by everybody in the organization forever — a shared one keeps working for its grantees with nobody able to change it, a private one simply becomes unreachable. Their presence also makes member.delete refuse. Returns { user_id, user: { id, name, email }, connections: [{ connection, referenced_by: [...], needs_resolution }], synthetic_tools: [{ synthetic_tool: { id, name, description, step_count, ... }, referenced_by: [...], needs_resolution }], toolboxes: [{ resource_type, id, name, entry_count, private, shared_with: { team_count, user_count, total, preview }, needs_resolution }], templates: [ ...same shape ], delegated_entries: [{ toolbox_id, toolbox_name, entry_id, connector_slug, tool_name, connection_id }] } directly — no envelope, no cursors. Sensitive read: returns records an operator treats as confidential (audit history, credential metadata, offboarding detail). Read-only, but not harmless — do not echo the contents further than needed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe member’s USER id (`usr_…`) from member.list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already say read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral nuance: it is 'Read-only, but not harmless', warns that data is sensitive and should not be echoed, explains exact refusal triggers, clarifies that delegated entries cannot be auto-fixed, and discloses response-shape details like 'no envelope, no cursors.' This goes well beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

The description is long but the domain is genuinely complex and every major section contributes necessary offboarding semantics: connections, delegated entries, synthetic tools, toolboxes/templates, return shape, and sensitivity. It front-loads the core purpose. Some repetition of the 'makes member.delete refuse' pattern could be tightened, but overall the length is earned rather than padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies a full return shape, including resource-specific fields and caveats. It covers blocking vs non-blocking conditions, ownership consequences, shared_with preview bounds, privacy limits on synthetic tool steps, and sensitive-read warnings. The agent has everything it needs to call the tool correctly and interpret its result responsibly.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single parameter: 'The member’s USER id (`usr_…`) from member.list.' Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The tool description adds contextual meaning about what the preview returns for that member, but it does not need to add syntax or format information beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific, informative purpose: 'Preview what removing a member would break, without changing anything.' That is a clear verb+resource+outcome, and the distinction from a real destructive delete is made concrete by explaining which conditions make member.delete refuse. It is easily distinguished from member.get/member.list and other siblings.

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 establishes clear context: this is the pre-removal preview tool, and it explains when refusal will or will not happen ('Any connection marked needs_resolution will make member.delete refuse', 'delegated_entries ... non-blocking', 'synthetic_tools ... makes member.delete refuse outright'). It gives practical guidance such as 'say what will be lost before proposing a removal.' It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state 'use instead of X', but the usage context is unambiguous.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources