remove_memberRemove a member from this brand workspace by email — they lose access (you can re-invite them later). Confirm the exact person with the user, then call with confirm:true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | the member’s email | ||
| confirm | No | REQUIRED true |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint: true and idempotentHint: true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that the member loses access but can be re-invited later, clarifying the permanence level. It also instructs to confirm the exact person, which is an important safety behavior. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and consequence, the second delivers the essential usage instruction. Every word contributes to clarity and correct invocation.
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 destructive action with a required confirmation flag, the description covers the critical aspects: effect, reversibility, and required confirmation. It does not mention error handling or edge cases (e.g., nonexistent email), but given its simplicity and the presence of annotations, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.
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 both parameters are documented. The description reinforces the need for confirm:true and explains why (confirm the exact person), adding semantic value beyond the schema's bland 'REQUIRED true'. The phrase 'by email' also aligns with the email parameter, but the key added meaning is the confirmation rationale.
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 ('Remove') and a clear resource ('member from this brand workspace') with the method ('by email'). It also conveys the consequence (lose access) and the possibility of re-invitation, which distinguishes it from other member-related tools like invite_member or set_role. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose.
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 gives explicit guidance on when to call it: after confirming with the user, and it specifies the required confirm:true parameter. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to avoid, but the confirmation step is a strong usage criterion. The absence of explicit exclusions is a minor gap, but the instruction is clear enough for correct selection.
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.
With 293 tools, the surface is enormous and many tools have overlapping purposes—multiple posting tools (post_to_meta, post_to_linkedin, schedule_post, etc.), multiple analytics tools per channel, and several search tools (search_meta_ads, search_instagram, search_reddit...). While each description is detailed, the volume makes it difficult for an agent to reliably distinguish between similar tools without careful reading, leading to frequent misselection.
The naming is largely consistent with a verb_noun pattern (post_to_*, list_*, create_*, delete_*, update_*, manage_*). There are clear families for major operations. A few outliers like 'google_business_account', 'hermoso_capabilities', and 'store_get' break the pattern, but the overwhelming majority follow a predictable structure, making navigation somewhat easier.
293 tools is far beyond any reasonable scope for a single MCP server, even for a comprehensive marketing platform. The calibration guide flags 50+ as an extreme mismatch, and this is nearly six times that threshold. Such a large surface overwhelms context windows, increases the probability of misselection, and makes it impractical for agents to learn or use effectively.
The tool set covers a vast domain: ad creation and rendering, posting across nine+ social channels, analytics and reporting, file management (Drive/OneDrive), competitor research, brand management, and more. It appears to provide CRUD and lifecycle coverage for most resources. While there may be minor gaps given the immense scope, the overall coverage is impressively comprehensive.