appforshare-mcp

Official

by appforshare

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Hybrid

Remove testers

remove_testers

DestructiveIdempotent

Removes testers from an AppForShare workspace or revokes hand-granted project access by email. Requires confirm: true, and group-based access is kept.

Instructions

With a project id: take away the access given by hand to that project (access through a group stays). Without: remove the testers from the workspace. Ask the person first and pass confirm: true. Team, Developer role.

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": {
      "emails": "<emails>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "remove_testers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`emails`	Yes
`confirm`	Yes
`project`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.7Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful nuance on top: only directly-granted access is revoked while group-derived access persists, and the agent must confirm with the person before calling. The trailing fragment 'Team, Developer role.' is cryptic and likely a plan/permission note, which slightly blunts the otherwise strong disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Tight, front-loaded sentences that put the scoping distinction first and the confirm requirement last. The final fragment 'Team, Developer role.' is unclear enough to be noise rather than signal.

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 destructive, no-output-schema tool with three params, the description covers the critical agent decisions: which scope, whether to confirm, and that group access survives. Missing details such as behavior for unknown emails or the response shape are minor given the small surface area.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains the semantic effect of `project` (scope switch) and mandates `confirm: true`, which is genuinely useful. However, `emails` — the primary required array with a 100-item cap — is left entirely implicit, and no format or matching behavior is described.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('take away the access', 'remove the testers') and clearly delineates two modes: project-scoped versus workspace-scoped. It does not name a sibling such as add_testers, but the operation and its two variants are unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says when each branch applies: pass a project id to revoke manual project access, omit it to remove testers from the workspace. It also adds an operative prerequisite ('Ask the person first and pass confirm: true'). It stops short of pointing to alternatives such as group-based access removal, which are only referenced indirectly.

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