ct_remove_group_memberPreview removing a person from a ChurchTools group before committing. Provide group ID and person ID to see the full membership change for approval.
Writes nothing: returns a plan that removes the person from the group; the preview shows the whole membership.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| groupId | Yes | The group's id | |
| personId | Yes | The person's id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations it discloses two non-obvious facts: the call performs no write and the returned preview contains the whole membership (not just a diff), which is exactly the behavioral context a preview tool needs. It leaves a tension unexplained with readOnlyHint=false, and says nothing about plan lifetime or how the plan is applied.
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 compact sentence with the most important fact ('Writes nothing') front-loaded and zero padding. The trailing clause 'the preview shows the whole membership' is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, which keeps it just short of ideal.
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?
With no output schema, the description does describe the return value (a plan preview) at a high level, which is adequate for a 2-param tool. It is still incomplete on the essential workflow: how the plan is executed, whether it expires, and any permission prerequisites.
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 only two scalar id parameters, so the schema already fully documents groupId and personId. The description adds no format, constraint, or cross-parameter semantics beyond that baseline.
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+scope: a plan that removes a given person from a given group, which is clearly separable from ct_add_group_member and ct_update_group_member. However it never names ct_execute_plan, so the agent is not told this is one half of a plan/execute pair.
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 word 'plan' and the front-loaded 'Writes nothing' imply this is the preview step that must be followed by an execution step, but no sibling is named and no when-to-use/when-not condition is given. An agent must infer that ct_execute_plan is the required follow-up.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.