kanboard-mcp

remove_project_user

Unlink a user from a Kanboard project permanently. Requires explicit confirmation to prevent accidental removal.

Instructions

Unlink a user from a Kanboard project (does not delete the user). DESTRUCTIVE on the project-user relationship — requires explicit confirm: true. Returns { ok: true, project_id, user_id } on success.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "user_id": "<user_id>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "remove_project_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project_id`	Yes	Numeric project id.
`user_id`	Yes	Numeric user id to unlink from the project.
`confirm`	Yes	Must be exactly `true` to confirm unlinking the user.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedMay 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the destructive behavior on the project-user relationship, the confirm requirement, and the return format. It does not cover permissions or side effects, but the main behavioral traits are clear.

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 two sentences long, concise, and front-loaded with the core action. No extraneous information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema, the return value is described. Parameters are fully covered by the schema. The description is complete enough for correct invocation, though some edge cases (e.g., user not linked) are not addressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 'confirm' requirement and the destructive context but does not elaborate on parameter format beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Unlink a user from a Kanboard project') and distinguishes it from similar operations like adding a user or deleting the project. It is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use this tool (to remove a user from a project) and emphasizes the destructive nature with the need for explicit confirmation. It does not explicitly name alternatives but implies distinction from other tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.