fillo_change_member_roleSet a member's role (by member id or email). Anti-escalation applies: you cannot act on a higher-ranked member or grant above the consenting user's rank, and the last owner cannot be demoted. Ask-policy connections receive a human approval link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | Yes | ||
| member | Yes | Member id or email. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| role | Yes | ||
| Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the anti-escalation rules, the last-owner demotion block, and the fact that ask-policy connections trigger a human approval link — operational behavior an agent cannot get from the annotations.
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?
Two dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and constraints trailing. Every clause carries information, though the constraint list is packed tightly and could be slightly easier 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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the destructive/idempotency profile. The description supplies the permission and approval context a mutation tool needs; only the semantics of the role values remain unaddressed.
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 50%: 'member' is documented but 'role' has only an enum with no description. The description restates 'member id or email' (already in the schema) and does not explain the rank ordering of member/admin/owner or the default behavior, so it only marginally compensates.
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?
States a specific verb (Set/change) and resource (a member's role), with the accepted identifier form (member id or email). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like fillo_invite_member, fillo_remove_member, and fillo_revoke_agent without opening any schema.
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 implies usage through its constraints (anti-escalation, last-owner protection, human approval for ask-policy connections) but never states when to prefer this tool over inviting/removing a member or how it relates to fillo_list_members. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.
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.