Planning System MCP Server

remove_member

Remove a member from an organization. Requires owner or admin privileges; admins cannot remove other admins.

Instructions

Remove a member from an organization. Caller must be org owner or admin (admins cannot remove other admins). Server rejects removing the org owner.

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": {
      "organization_id": "<organization_id>",
      "membership_id": "<membership_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_member"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`organization_id`	Yes
`membership_id`	Yes
`reason`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.8.1Apr 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authorization rules and server-side rejection behavior, which are critical behavioral traits beyond basic CRUD.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose appears in the first sentence, and constraints follow immediately.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has three parameters and no output schema. The description covers authorization but omits details like irreversibility, return value, or what happens after removal. For a simple removal it's minimally adequate but not thorough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any of the three parameters ('organization_id', 'membership_id', 'reason'), leaving their semantics unclear. For instance, 'membership_id' is not defined.

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 the action ('Remove a member') and the resource ('organization'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'invite_member' (add) or 'update_member_role' (modify role).

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 description provides explicit caller requirements (owner or admin) and constraints (admins cannot remove other admins, cannot remove owner), giving clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative member-management tools.

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