remove_userRemoves a user once the Site Owner confirms on approve_url; a paid membership ends with its period. A pending join request is declined instead (they are emailed; two steps).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | ||
| Yes | |||
| confirm_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| approve_url | No | ||
| agent_message | No | ||
| confirm_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / agent_messageAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / approve_urlAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "confirm_token": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: removal requires Site Owner confirmation via approve_url, paid memberships end with their period, and pending join requests are declined instead with an email flow. It does not contradict annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence packs useful behavioral details, though phrases like 'they are emailed; two steps' are slightly cryptic.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description leaves gaps in parameter semantics and does not clarify how this tool differs from remove_people. It is adequate for behavioral context but incomplete for a destructive tool with a confirmation token.
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 0% for three parameters. The description hints at a confirmation flow via 'approve_url,' but it does not explain what site, email, or confirm_token mean or how confirm_token is obtained. It does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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: 'Removes a user.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like remove_people, leaving some ambiguity about which user-removal tool applies.
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 through conditions like 'once the Site Owner confirms on approve_url' and 'a pending join request is declined instead,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus remove_people or other alternatives. Usage guidance is present but indirect.
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.