msteams-personal-mcp

teams_remove_group_member

Destructive

Remove a member from a Microsoft Teams group chat after explicit confirmation, when admin rights are available.

Instructions

REMOVE a person from a group chat. Needs group admin rights. Only when the user explicitly asked; confirm who first.

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": {
      "conversationId": "<conversationId>",
      "member": "<member>"
    },
    "name": "teams_remove_group_member"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`member`	Yes	Teams id, e.g. "8:live:.cid.…"
`conversationId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: admin rights are required and confirmation should happen first.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by prerequisites and confirmation guidance. No wasted text.

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 simple destructive two-parameter tool with annotations covering safety, the description includes the key operational and safety constraints. Minor gaps remain around parameter formats and error behavior.

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 only 50%, and conversationId is undocumented. The description implies member and conversation semantics but adds no format or identification details beyond what the schema already says.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: remove a person from a group chat. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like add_group_member and leave_group.

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 gives explicit usage conditions: only when the user explicitly asked and confirm who first. It also states the admin-rights prerequisite, though it does not name alternatives.

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