Remove a team member by UUID, email, or handle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team_identifier | Yes | The team to act on, identified by its UUID or handle. | |
| user_identifier | Yes | The target user, identified by their UUID, email, or handle. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'Remove' but does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., impact on shared workflows, permissions, or content). Annotations set destructiveHint to false, which might mislead about the actual effects of removal. No mention of reversibility or required permissions.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.
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 tool with two parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description provides the essential information. However, it omits behavioral context like idempotency (idempotentHint false) and potential failure modes, which could be important for an AI agent.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions matching the tool's description. The description reinforces the accepted identifier formats but adds no new meaning beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the action ('Remove'), the resource ('team member'), and the allowed identification methods (UUID, email, or handle). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'add_team_member' by specifying removal rather than addition.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'cancel_invitation' for pending invites or 'leave_shared_workflow'. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., ownership/admin status) or scenarios where removal is appropriate.
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.
