remove_userRemove a team member from the account
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | User ID to remove (from list_users) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Confirmation that the user was removed and can no longer sign in. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / properties / success / descriptionPrevious value: -"True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead."New value: +"True when the call succeeded."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The destructiveHint annotation already communicates that this is a destructive action, and the description clarifies that the removal is from the account, which is useful scope. However, the description does not add details such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or effects on the removed user's owned resources; the annotation lowers the burden, but some behavioral context is still missing.
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?
The description is one short, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word earns its place for such a simple tool.
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?
Given the low complexity, the presence of an output schema, and the destructiveHint annotation, the definition is largely complete for an agent to invoke safely. It could improve by noting permanence or post-removal consequences, but the essential information is present.
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?
The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, and the description adds practical meaning by noting that the ID comes from list_users. This helps an agent know where to source a valid value, going beyond the schema's type-only definition.
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 action ('Remove') and a specific resource ('a team member from the account'), which makes the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from other remove_* siblings by targeting team membership, though it does not explicitly contrast with related user tools like update_user or invite_user.
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 implies usage: when a team member should no longer be part of the account. The parameter hint '(from list_users)' provides some operational guidance, but there are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent decide between this and related user management tools.
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.