remove_community_memberRemove a member from a community you run (tears down their membership and cancels any paid membership subscription they hold there immediately). The creator cannot be removed. Requires community_id + user_id; you must be its creator or admin.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | ||
| community_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint true, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it tears down membership, immediately cancels any paid subscription, and explicitly forbids removing the creator. This goes well beyond the annotations and fully discloses side effects and 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?
Two concise sentences with zero fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence packs requirements and restrictions efficiently. Every word contributes to the tool's understanding.
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?
The description covers the core action, side effects, permission requirement, and an edge case (creator cannot be removed). It does not describe the response format or error handling, but for a simple destructive action with clear inputs, this is sufficient for an agent to call it 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 has two required parameters with 0% description coverage. The description merely repeats 'Requires community_id + user_id' without explaining what each ID represents or how to obtain them. The names are somewhat self-evident, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema field names.
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 action ('Remove a member from a community you run') with a clear resource and scope, and distinguishes it from siblings like remove_guest and remove_profile_member by specifying 'community' and the requirement of being creator/admin. It also conveys the immediate consequence of cancelling paid subscriptions, making the tool's role unambiguous.
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 clearly states when to use the tool (removing a member from a community you run) and provides the prerequisite that the caller must be the creator or admin. It also notes the creator cannot be removed. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for similar actions (e.g., remove_guest for events), leaving some differentiation to inference from the community context.
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.