Skip to main content
Glama

Dock

by ai.trydock

remove_workspace_member

Remove a workspace member. Editor role required; owner-tier removals require an owner caller. Sole-owner removal is blocked; promote someone else first. Note: if the workspace visibility is org, removing an explicit member of the same org leaves them with virtual editor access via the org-membership branch. Consent-gated for agents: the FIRST call returns { status: 'confirmation_required', confirm_token, message, expires_in }. Surface the message to your user and, if they say yes, re-call this tool within 60s with confirm_token set to the same token. User callers (cookie session) skip the consent step.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesThe workspace slug. Accepts either the bare slug ('my-workspace') or the org-prefixed form ('my-org/my-workspace') as shown in the dashboard URL; both resolve to the same workspace.
member_idYesThe WorkspaceMember id to remove. Get this from list_workspace_members.
confirm_tokenNoThe token returned by the first call as `confirm_token`. Omit on the first call; include on the second call to execute the removal. Single-use, 60s TTL. Agents only; user callers don't need this.

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses role restrictions, the sole-owner edge case, the org-visibility virtual access nuance, the two-call consent flow, token TTL, and single-use constraint. This goes far beyond the bare schema.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place, covering prerequisites, edge cases, and the consent workflow without fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and then layers necessary caveats.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—role conditions, consent flow, org edge case—the description is exceptionally complete. It even describes the first call's return structure, compensating for the absent output schema. No significant gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaning to confirm_token by explaining the first-call/second-call pattern and 60s TTL. It also clarifies slug forms (bare vs org-prefixed), enriching the parameter semantics 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 verb and resource: 'Remove a workspace member.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like update_workspace_member and list_workspace_members by focusing on removal semantics. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit role requirements ('Editor role required'), owner-tier restrictions, sole-owner block guidance, and a detailed consent-gating procedure for agents. It distinguishes exactly when and how to call the tool versus when user callers skip the consent step.

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

All Dock toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that prevent confusion. The main ambiguity arises from send_message vs. the referenced but missing message_teammate tool, and add_column vs. update_surface for schema changes, but these are mostly clarified by the descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun with underscores (e.g., create_workspace, list_rows, update_doc). Exceptions like 'search' and 'address_book' (no noun) and the two-word 'react_to_comment' are minor deviations in an otherwise consistent pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 68 tools, the surface is far too large for an MCP server, exceeding the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. This volume creates excessive selection overhead for agents and suggests the tool set could be consolidated or split into focused servers.

Completeness3/5

The server covers broad functionality across workspaces, docs, tables, HTML, comments, files, webhooks, and billing. However, notable gaps exist: the explicitly referenced message_teammate tool is missing (preventing agent-to-agent waking), and there is no create/upload file tool or create API key tool, which creates dead ends in workflows.

Resources