typst_remove_memberRemoves a member from a Typst project by project ID and user ID, revoking that user's access to the project.
Remove a member from a project. user_id comes from typst_get_project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | Project ID from typst_list_projects, e.g. 'pAbC123dEf456gHi789jKl' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent, but the description adds little behavioral context beyond that. It does not describe the effect of removal, permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens to the removed user's access.
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?
The description is two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no wasted wording. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter operation.
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?
The description plus annotations and schema cover the basics needed to call the tool, but for a destructive mutation it omits important context such as side effects, permission constraints, and failure modes. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.
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 only 50%, and the undocumented user_id parameter is clarified by the description as coming from typst_get_project. The other parameter, project_id, is well documented in the schema with an example.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a member from a project.' It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related sibling tools such as typst_update_member or typst_revoke_invitation.
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 description only explains where user_id comes from, not when to use this tool versus alternatives like updating a member or revoking an invitation. Usage is implied by the tool name, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.