Remove users from an organization by their user identification strings, helping manage member access and clean up organization rosters.
Remove users from an organization by their user identification strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| users | Yes | comma-separated list of user identification strings | |
| organization | Yes | organization identification string |
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 declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description aligns with these. It adds no extra behavioral context beyond the action itself, such as side effects or prerequisites. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description contributes minimal additional value.
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?
A single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.
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 operation with no output schema, the description is adequate. Annotations cover the destructive and idempotent nature. It doesn't mention irreversible side effects, but those are implied by destructiveHint and the clear 'Remove' action. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.
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 both parameters described in the schema. The description's mention of 'user identification strings' simply restates the users parameter's schema description. No new semantic information is added beyond what the schema provides.
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 clearly states the action (Remove), the target resource (users from an organization), and the input method (by user identification strings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edubase_delete_class_members (different scope) and edubase_post_organization_members (opposite action). No ambiguity.
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 implies when to use it (when you need to remove users from an organization) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions or comparisons to similar deletion tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.