Remove an npm user from a package's maintainer list, preventing lockout by refusing if no maintainers would remain.
Remove a user from a package's maintainer list. Refuses if it would leave the package with zero maintainers (lockout prevention).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Package name | |
| username | Yes | npm username to remove |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail: 'Refuses if it would leave the package with zero maintainers (lockout prevention),' which goes beyond the annotation metadata. This provides the agent with a clear safety guardrail.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes a useful safety note without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description covers the core action, the safety behavior, and the scope. It does not describe return values or permissions, but those are not essential given the annotations. The lockout note adds completeness, though explicit when-to-use guidance would make it fully 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?
The schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions ('Package name' and 'npm username to remove'). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('Remove a user from a package's maintainer list') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like npm_owner_add and npm_maintainers by focusing on removal from the maintainer list.
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 implies usage for removing a maintainer, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., npm_owner_add for adding, npm_maintainers for viewing). There is no 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the context to be inferred from the tool's name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.