Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_delete_member

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a member's access to an account by specifying the account and membership IDs. Prevents removal of the account's last owner, ensuring at least one owner remains.

Instructions

Removes a member's access to the account. The account's last OWNER cannot be removed.

Endpoint: DELETE /v1/accounts/{account_id}/members/{member_id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
member_idYesMembership unique UUID.
account_idYesYour own account, or an account you provisioned. It — not the credential — decides which account the operation acts on; a `403` is returned when you do not reach it, the same response an account that does not exist gets.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not burdened with restating that. It adds a valuable non-obvious behavioral rule: the account's last OWNER cannot be removed.

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 short sentences plus the endpoint line. It front-loads the core action and includes only the meaningful guardrail about the last OWNER, with no fluff.

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 two-parameter destructive action, the description plus annotations cover the safety profile and the key business rule. It could mention consequences to related grants or permissions, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is omitted.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the endpoint path, which is already represented in the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Removes') and resource ('a member's access to the account'), and reinforces it with the exact DELETE endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like beel_delete_member_grant or beel_delete_invitation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor about prerequisites beyond the last-OWNER restriction. The intended use is only implied by the verb and resource.

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