member_deleteRemove a member from an organization, preserving their assigned conversations. Requires organization admin permission.
Remove a member from an organization. Their assigned conversations stay in the organization. Requires organization admin permission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memberId | Yes | The organization member id to remove. | |
| organizationId | Yes | The organization id. Use organization_list to find it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write/destructive nature is already covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: the side effect that assigned conversations persist in the organization, and the admin permission requirement.
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences, each carrying distinct information (purpose, side effect, prerequisite) with no waste or repetition.
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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, authorization, and the key side effect. It is largely complete, though it could note irreversibility or confirmation behavior.
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 memberId and organizationId both documented (including a pointer to organization_list). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Remove') and resource ('a member from an organization'), which clearly contrasts with siblings like member_create, member_update, and member_get. An agent can distinguish it without opening the schema, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.
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?
Provides a useful prerequisite ('Requires organization admin permission') but gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance or mention of alternatives. Usage is implied from the verb and the permission note rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.