Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Proof Holdings

by holdings.proof
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

remove_circle_member

Destructive

Remove a member from a Circle. Deletes the member's channels and revokes any live authorizations that routed through them.

ACCESS: needs a Proof account. Authenticate this client (Claude Code: /mcp → Authenticate), then call this tool again. start_login does NOT open this tool.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "member_id": "<member_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_circle_member"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesCircle ID
member_idYesMember ID to remove

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {},
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by naming exactly what is destroyed — the member's channels — and that live authorizations routed through them are revoked. It also states the concrete auth requirement and clarifies that start_login does not unblock this tool, which prevents a predictable failed call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The destructive consequence is front-loaded in sentence two, which is the highest-value information. The ACCESS block is longer than the operational content and could be tightened, but every part of it is actionable rather than filler.

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 two-param mutation with an output schema, the description covers the cascade effects, the authorization requirement, and the specific failure mode (start_login not applying). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, with both id and member_id documented as 24-hex ObjectIds, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no extra semantics about identifier format, sourcing, or whether the removal is by display name vs ID — baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Remove a member from a Circle") and immediately discloses that the removal cascades to channels and authorizations. It implicitly distinguishes itself from remove_circle_member_channel by naming what that separate tool presumably handles, but it never explicitly contrasts with add_circle_member/invite_circle_member.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use it (removing a member, knowing the cascade), and the ACCESS paragraph gives a concrete prerequisite path for authentication. However, it names no alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, e.g. whether to remove channels individually first or when to prefer remove_circle_member_channel.

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

All Proof Holdings 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