OpenCOOP MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

revoke_access

Remove a team member's access to the shared project folder immediately, preventing further read/write actions and protecting project integrity.

Instructions

Revoke a team member's access.

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": {
      "user_id": "<user_id>"
    },
    "name": "revoke_access"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reason`	No	Reason for revocation
`user_id`	Yes	User ID to revoke

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.11.1Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only signals mutation through the word 'Revoke' and does not mention permanence, reversibility, side effects on the member's data, or required permissions, all of which matter for an access-revocation operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence with no redundant wordscars, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, though adding one or two sentences about consequences would improve balance without hurting conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive access-control action with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It omits information about reversibility, what happens to the member's existing access or data, and what response the agent should expect, leaving the agent under-informed.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including 'user_id' and 'reason', so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no extra parameter context, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific action, 'Revoke', and a specific resource, 'a team member's access', so a model can tell what the tool does. It semantically contrasts with invite_member, but it does not explicitly define what kind of access is being revoked or differentiate itself from related tools beyond the verb.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is only a bare action phrase, so the agent is left to infer the use case without any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer another tool like invite_member.

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