Removes a job role from an organization; assigned members lose the role and any competencies granted by it.
Remove job role from an organization. Members with the job role are left without a job role and lose the competencies given by it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job | Yes | name of the job role (or its external identifier if no job role has this name) | |
| organization | Yes | organization identification string |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new consequence information: members holding the role are left without a role and lose the competencies granted by it. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't say whether the removal is reversible or what happens on failure.
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 short sentences, purpose first, consequence second; every clause carries information and nothing is padded.
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 two-parameter destructive delete with no output schema, the description covers what it does and the downstream effect on members and competencies, while annotations cover the safety profile. Missing only edge-case behavior such as errors when the role is still assigned.
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% with two simple string parameters, including the useful note that 'job' may be a name or external identifier. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, which is acceptable at full schema coverage.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Remove job role from an organization'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like edubase_delete_organization, edubase_delete_organization_members, and edubase_patch_organization_job. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
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 guidance on when to choose this over editing the role with edubase_patch_organization_job, and no prerequisites such as required admin permissions or whether members must be reassigned first. Usage is only inferable from the word 'Remove'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.