Skip to main content
Glama

The Bridge

by dev.thebridge
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Remove User

remove_user
Destructive

Remove a user from a tenant, revoking their access to it. This is IRREVERSIBLE and REQUIRES CONFIRMATION: resolve the user first, then call again with confirm set to the exact email address — and only after the user has explicitly agreed to the removal. If access should merely be suspended, call update_user with enabled=false instead, which can be undone. Fails without removing anything when the tenant or email does not resolve to exactly one record, or the confirmation does not match. dryRun: true previews it first — whether their login account goes too (it does when this is their only workspace) and whether they are the last owner — without removing anything or needing confirm. Before writing app code that consumes this, call get_integration_guide with topic=team and the framework the app uses.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appNoId of the Bridge app to act on for this call (see list_apps). Omit to use the current app.
emailYesEmail address of the user to remove, as list_users shows it.
dryRunNotrue previews what the deletion would affect and deletes nothing — no confirm needed. Do this first and show the user the result. Needs the same privilege as the deletion itself.
confirmNoRepeat the exact key of the resource being deleted, as confirmation. Required to delete; not needed with dryRun. This is a deliberate safety step — do NOT guess it or copy it from a fuzzy match. If you are not certain, list the resources first and ask the user which one they mean.
tenantNameYesTenant NAME from list_tenants (a tenant id is accepted as a fallback).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true but the description goes well beyond them: it flags IRREVERSIBILITY, the confirmation requirement, the exact-failure conditions (tenant/email not resolving to exactly one record, confirmation mismatch), and dryRun side effects (login account removal, last-owner detection). This is rich behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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?

The safety-critical facts (IRREVERSIBLE, REQUIRES CONFIRMATION) are front-loaded and the alternative path and dryRun guidance follow in logical order. Despite its length, every clause carries actionable weight.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, failure modes, the safe preview path, the alternative operation, and follow-on tooling. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and safely.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: confirm must equal the exact email address and must follow explicit user consent, and dryRun previews without needing confirm. It reinforces rather than merely restates the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Remove a user from a tenant, revoking their access to it.' It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the suspension path by naming update_user, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit on when to use vs alternatives: use update_user with enabled=false if access should merely be suspended. Lays out the required two-step confirm flow, mandates dryRun preview first, and points to get_integration_guide for app integration. Nothing is left to inference.

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

All The Bridge 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