group_member_roleAssign or change a group member’s role to member, editor, or blocked as the group owner, controlling access and moderation for a specific user.
Owner only: makes a member an editor or a plain member, or blocks them (use group_block to lift a block).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | Yes | ||
| user_id | Yes | ||
| group_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations lack: the owner-only authorization requirement and the asymmetric behavior that blocking happens here but must be lifted via group_block.
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 front-loaded sentence with the permission gate first and the alternative tool named last. Zero waste.
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 destructive mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers authorization, enum meaning, and the cross-tool block/unblock workflow. It lacks edge-case behavior (re-applying the same role) but is otherwise sufficient to call 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It does explain the non-obvious enum, mapping 'editor', 'plain member', and 'blocked' to the role values, but says nothing about group_id/user_id beyond what their names imply, nor about behavior when setting a role the user already holds.
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+resource ('makes a member an editor or a plain member, or blocks them') and names the sibling group_block it is not equivalent to. An agent can distinguish this from group_block without opening either schema.
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?
Gives a hard precondition ('Owner only') and routes the unblock case to group_block, which is a concrete when/when-not signal. It does not explicitly state the reverse case (when to call group_block instead of this tool for blocking), so it falls just short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.