brainkb_revoke_capability
(Admin only) Revoke a previously granted capability from a user.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| member | Yes | ||
| capability | Yes |
brainkb
by org.brainkb
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the 'Admin only' permission requirement and implies the capability must have been previously granted. However, it does not disclose error behavior, reversibility, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but offers only limited behavioral context beyond the core action.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the admin constraint, and contains zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter revoke tool, the description gives the core purpose and an important admin restriction. However, it lacks usage guidance, parameter detail, and any behavioral consequences, making it minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent to invoke confidently.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'member' refers to a user and 'capability' is the granted capability, but does not provide formats, valid values, or references to related tools like brainkb_list_capabilities. Minimal value added beyond the parameter names themselves.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Revoke a previously granted capability from a user' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like brainkb_revoke_role_capability by targeting a user's capability directly. The admin-only note adds a meaningful constraint.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as brainkb_revoke_role_capability or brainkb_grant_capability. It does not mention prerequisites, valid sources for member/capability values, or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, such as user management (activate, ban, assign role) vs. space management (create, add member, set visibility) vs. ingest/jobs (ingest_files, job_status, recover). A few pairs like grant_capability vs. grant_role_capability are similar but descriptions clarify the target, so an agent should be able to choose correctly.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools are prefixed with brainkb_ and the large majority follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_space_member, list_tokens, revoke_token). Some exceptions like brainkb_delta, brainkb_search, brainkb_whoami, and brainkb_capabilities break the pattern, but these are few and still readable.
Tool Count2/5
With 49 tools, the server is far above the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the broad scope (user admin, spaces, graphs, ingest, provenance, auth) justifies many operations, the sheer number makes it heavy and potentially unwieldy for an agent to navigate.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers a wide range of use cases: user/role/capability management, space administration, graph registration, ingest, job monitoring, provenance, search, and SPARQL. However, there are notable gaps such as removing a space member, deleting a space, or updating space metadata, which could leave agents without a way to fully manage the lifecycle of a space.