Remove users from Datadog teams to manage access and permissions through API integration.
Remove a user from a team.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "delete_team_memberships"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Remove' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't disclose whether this requires admin permissions, whether the removal is permanent or reversible, what happens to the user's access, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point: 'Remove a user from a team.' Every word earns its place, with zero waste or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple operation with no parameters.
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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Remove' entails (permanent deletion? temporary suspension?), what permissions are required, what confirmation might be needed, or what the response looks like. Given the complexity of team membership management, more context is needed for safe and effective use.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the action without unnecessary parameter details.
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 'Remove a user from a team' clearly states the verb ('Remove') and resource ('user from a team'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_team' or 'delete_team_links', which reduces its effectiveness in a crowded toolset.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions required, or what happens after removal. With many sibling deletion tools in the list, the agent receives no help in selecting the appropriate tool for removing team memberships specifically.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.