Skip to main content
Glama
Ringer

warp-mcp

by Ringer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Set a member's role

team_update_member_role
Idempotent

Replace a team member’s current role with a new one by providing customer, user, and role UUIDs. Prevents privilege escalation by allowing only roles whose scopes the caller holds. Requires team:write scope.

Instructions

Assign a role (system or customer-owned, never superadmin) to a member of this customer, replacing their current role. The caller must hold every scope the role grants (no privilege escalation). Find user UUIDs via team_list_members and role UUIDs via team_list_roles. Requires the team:write scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
role_idYesUUID of the role to assign (from team_list_roles); superadmin roles cannot be assigned
user_idYesUser UUID of the team member (find it via team_list_members)
customer_idYesYour customer UUID (shown in the WARP portal under Settings)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds that it replaces the current role, the caller must hold every scope granted (no privilege escalation), and superadmin roles cannot be assigned. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is concise (three sentences), front-loaded with the main action, and contains no unnecessary information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool is a write operation with no output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, constraints, prerequisites, and auth scope. It lacks information on return value or error conditions, but overall it's fairly complete.

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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions for each parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., how to find UUIDs via sibling tools), so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it assigns a role to a member, replacing their current role, and specifies that roles can be system or customer-owned but never superadmin. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like team_create_role or team_remove_member.

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?

It explains when to use (to assign a role), points to sibling tools for finding UUIDs, and states the required scope. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools