Remove specified users from a class using their user identification strings to update class membership.
Remove users from a class by their user identification strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| class | Yes | class identification string | |
| users | Yes | comma-separated list of user identification strings |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.2Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v1.0.22Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey destructiveHint=true坍 readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the basic 'Remove users' action, such as what happens to related assignments or permissions. It does not contradict 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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It leads with the verb and resource, then specifies the input format, making it easy to scan and 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?
For a simple two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. Combined with the annotations and schema, an agent can understand what the tool does and what arguments to supply. It lacks explicit guidance on side effects, but that is adequately covered by destructiveHint and idempotentHint.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters ('class' and 'users') are already documented. The description's phrase 'by their user identification strings' only reiterates what the schema already states about the 'users' parameter, adding no new meaning.
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 uses a specific verb 'Remove' with a clear resource 'users from a class' and a method 'by their user identification strings'. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling operations like edubase_post_class_members (adds users) and edubase_get_class_members (lists members).
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?
No explicit when-to-use or comparison with alternatives is provided. The purpose is implied by the name and description, but the agent is not told that this is the counterpart to edubase_post_class_members or when to prefer it over edubase_delete_user_classes. No exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.