fynk MCP

Detach account users from team

detach-account-users-from-team

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove one or more account users from a team.

Use this tool when:

The user asks to remove people from a team

Only the account users listed in account_user_uuids are removed; other team members stay attached. Passing a user that is not on the team is a no-op.

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": {
      "team_uuid": "<team_uuid>",
      "account_user_uuids": "<account_user_uuids>"
    },
    "name": "detach-account-users-from-team"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`team_uuid`	Yes	UUID of the team to remove members from
`account_user_uuids`	Yes	UUIDs of the account users to remove from the team

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`icon`	No	Icon identifier for the team (e.g. "UserGroupIcon")
`name`	No	Name of the team
`uuid`	No	Identifier for the team. Do not show to the user unless they ask for it
`_entity_type`	No	Only relevant for tooling. Do not show to the user

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description makes them concrete: only the UUIDs in account_user_uuids are removed and other members stay attached, so the blast radius is bounded. It also explains the idempotency hint operationally, 'Passing a user that is not on the team is a no-op.' This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot supply.

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 operation statement comes first, followed by a short trigger list and then scope caveats, so the key information is front-loaded. The bulleted 'Use this tool when' block is slightly heavy for a single condition but it is not padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter destructive mutation with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger, and edge-case behavior adequately. Minor gaps remain around prerequisites (who can detach members) and the inverse attach tool, but nothing critical prevents a correct call.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that account_user_uuids is a strict allowlist whose other members are unaffected, and that unknown members are silently ignored.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Remove one or more account users from a team,' which is directly actionable. The inverse sibling attach-account-users-to-team is not named, but the direction of the operation is unambiguous from the name and text. This is clear without sibling differentiation, so a 4 is warranted.

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?

An explicit trigger condition is given: 'Use this tool when: The user asks to remove people from a team.' No when-not cases or named alternatives are provided, e.g. attach-account-users-to-team for the reverse or list-account-team-members to confirm membership first. Clear context but no exclusions or alternatives.

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

All fynk MCP 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?