Komers Sites

Remove an editor

remove_member

Destructive

Stop someone from editing this site.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "remove_member"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	Yes	Site slug (e.g. "kopitiam-muar") or id
`email`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already disclose that this is destructive and not read-only, so the description is not required to carry the full safety burden. It adds the useful detail that the effect concerns editing access on a specific site, but it does not clarify immediacy, reversibility, or required permissions.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is as concise as possible, even though it is under-specified for other dimensions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive member-removal tool, the description is too sparse: it does not clarify that a member is removed by email, whether this is reversible, or how it differs from related access-revocation tools. Annotations and schema provide some safety and parameter context, but the description does not fill the remaining meaningful gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not mention either parameter. While the schema documents the site slug/id, the email parameter has no schema description and the description does not explain that it identifies the member to remove.

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?

The description states a clear action (stop someone from editing) and target scope (this site), which is enough to distinguish it from general visitor/agent tools. It does not explicitly say it removes a member or name the email parameter, so sibling differentiation is limited.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as revoke_agent_access or remove_visitor. Usage is only weakly implied by the phrase 'Stop someone from editing this site.'

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

All Komers Sites tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?