mcp-remnawave

squads_remove_users

Remove specific users from a squad by providing squad UUID and user numeric IDs, with support for up to 1000 users per call.

Instructions

Remove specific users from an internal squad (1-1000 per call, async 202)

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": {
      "squadUuid": "<squadUuid>",
      "userIds": "<userIds>"
    },
    "name": "squads_remove_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`userIds`	Yes	Array of user numeric IDs to remove
`squadUuid`	Yes	Squad UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add an important trait: the operation is asynchronous and returns 202. However, it does not disclose what happens after acceptance, whether the removal is idempotent, or any side effects/requirements, leaving notable gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

A single sentence packs the action, scope, batch limit, and async behavior with no filler. The key constraint is front-loaded and every element earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with a complete schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: target squad, specific users, batch limit, and the async 202 behavior. It is slightly thin on post-acceptance semantics and alternative-tool routing, but enough to invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents squadUuid and userIds. The description adds the batch size constraint of 1-1000, which reinforces the schema's minItems/maxItems, but provides no additional parameter-level meaning beyond that.

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 states a specific action and resource: removing specific users from an internal squad, which immediately distinguishes it from squad-wide operations like squads_remove_all_users and from external squads. The verb 'Remove' plus the targeted resource make the tool's purpose 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 phrase 'specific users' and the 1-1000 per-call cap clearly identify when this tool is appropriate for targeted removals, while the sibling names provide the contrast for add or remove-all cases. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server