remove_org_memberRemove one member from an organization by email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Member email address. | ||
| orgId | Yes | Organization id (uuid). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description simply restates the destructive action already conveyed by the name and destructiveHint annotation. It does not disclose important behavioral implications such as whether the removal is irreversible, whether the underlying user account is affected, or permission/role restrictions.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler. The core action, scope, and identification method are front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 two-parameter destructive tool, the description is minimally viable, especially with an output schema and destructiveHint annotation available. However, it lacks edge-case guidance such as whether the last owner can be removed, whether deletion is permanent, or what happens when the email does not match a member.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents orgId and email. The description adds only that email is the identifying field, which is already implied by the schema description, providing marginal semantic value.
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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('one member from an organization') and identifies the email parameter as the lookup key. It clearly differentiates from project-member tools by specifying organization, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.
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 is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remove_project_member or upsert_org_member. An agent must infer the scope from the word 'organization' rather than being told directly.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource/action: board retrieval is split into JSON vs image with explicit cross-references, and drawing tools are separated from the generic update_board. Look-alikes like list_documents vs list_diagrams and publish_listing vs use_template are differentiated clearly.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern: create_project, list_documents, update_board, upsert_org_member. A few noun-only names like my_listings, project_file_counts and template_categories break the pattern, so naming is consistent but not uniform.
40 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold for a single server, even though the domains are clustered into org/project/document/board/template areas. The large surface will make tool selection and onboarding heavier for an agent than necessary.
Core lifecycle coverage for org/project/document/board/template is mostly present, and update_board serves as a flexible escape hatch. However, the board API reads rectangle/diamond/ellipse/free-text drawings and groups/links but only offers explicit create/erase for strokes and arrows; paid template purchase/access is also left unclear.