Leave an organization you belong to (removes your OWN membership). The last owner cannot leave — transfer ownership first with findagent_transfer_org_ownership.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | The organization slug (alternative to org_id). | |
| org_id | No | The organization id (from findagent_list_orgs). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| left | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations mark readOnlyHint=false, which already flags mutation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it removes only the caller's membership and enforces a last-owner constraint. It does not fully discuss reversibility, but for a simple leave operation with output schema present, this is solid.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The main behavior is front-loaded, and the important exception/alternative is stated immediately after. Every sentence 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?
For a simple two-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the key facts: scope of effect, owner exception, and routing to the transfer tool. Nothing needed to call or interpret the tool is missing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and both slug and org_id parameters are already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 score applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Leave an organization you belong to' and clarifies it 'removes your OWN membership.' This clearly distinguishes it from member-management tools like findagent_remove_member, which affect other users' memberships.
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 indicates the tool is for your own membership and explicitly names the alternative for owners: 'The last owner cannot leave — transfer ownership first with findagent_transfer_org_ownership.' It does not explicitly say 'use remove_member for others,' but 'removes your OWN membership' implies the exclusion, so usage context is clear.
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.
Every tool targets a clearly scoped resource+action combination, and the versioning variants (bump_version vs repull vs reintrospect_mcp) are explicitly disambiguated by agent kind. Even with 52 tools, the descriptions make each purpose distinct enough to avoid misselection.
Nearly all tools follow the findagent_<verb>_<object> snake_case pattern, and families share predictable verbs like list, create, delete, edit, and submit. Minor exceptions such as findagent_preflight, findagent_whoami, and findagent_earnings keep it from perfect consistency.
At 52 tools, this far exceeds the 25-tool threshold for a coherent MCP surface. The count may reflect a broad platform, but as a single toolset it is heavy and likely to strain agent selection and context.
The surface covers publishing, versioning, knowledge bases, org management, GitHub import, purchases, and the demand board in impressive depth. However, there are notable dead ends: no unpublish/delete for a live agent, no request-fulfillment/linking action, and no org deletion or KB document update.
