Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Odile Gate

by com.odilelabs
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Revoke a team member

gate_revoke_member
DestructiveIdempotent

Use the project owner admin key (ga_...) to remove a teammate's access immediately, invalidating their member key or pending invite. Safe to repeat. Invite links and keys are shown once; to restore access, create a new invite.

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>",
      "admin_key": "<admin_key>",
      "member": "<member>"
    },
    "name": "gate_revoke_member"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
memberYesThe member id (mem_...) from gate_list_members
admin_keyYesThe project admin key (ga_...). Read it from the .env; never print it.
project_idYesThe project id from gate_create_project, e.g. p1a2b3...

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, so the description's added value comes from stating what is destroyed: the member key or the pending invite. It also states that this takes effect immediately, that repeat calls are safe, and that recovery is not possible because the original invite cannot be re-shown. That is useful beyond what the annotations alone convey, although it does not cover permission errors or self-revocation.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the key prerequisite and effect come first. Every clause carries information: the credential needed, what the tool invalidates, idempotency, and the recovery path.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, what is destroyed, repeat safety, and recovery, which is solid for a three-parameter destructive tool with no output schema. It does not address the response or any failure modes, but that is a minor gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains all three parameters, including the mem_ pattern and the ga_ key prefix, so most of what the description says about parameters repeats the schema. It adds practically nothing beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation here.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "remove a teammate's access", then names the exact thing being torn down: "invalidating their member key or pending invite". That wording clearly separates this tool from related tools such as gate_invite_member and gate_revoke_app, which target different resources.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite: "Use the project owner admin key (ga_...)", and tells the caller what to do instead if access needs to be restored: "create a new invite". It does not explicitly say when not to revoke, such as an owner removing themselves or the last admin, but the path for recovery is clear.

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

All Odile Gate toolsInspect
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