Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BeeL MCP server

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_delete_member_grant

DestructiveIdempotent

Revokes a member’s access to a specific company without changing their grants for other companies, using account, member, and company IDs.

Instructions

Revokes a MEMBER's access to one company. Their grants over the account's other companies are left as they were.

BeeL API endpoint: DELETE /v1/accounts/{account_id}/members/{member_id}/grants/{company_id} (reference: https://docs.beel.es)

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": {
      "account_id": "<account_id>",
      "member_id": "<member_id>",
      "company_id": "<company_id>"
    },
    "name": "beel_delete_member_grant"
  }
}

Input 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.
company_idYesUnique identifier (UUID) of the company within the account.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / company_id / description
      Previous value: -"Company (NIF) unique UUID within the account."New value: +"Unique identifier (UUID) of the company within the account."
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the blast radius is exactly one company and sibling grants survive. It stops short of saying what happens when the grant does not exist, or what permission level is required.

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?

Two tight sentences with the effect and scope front-loaded, followed by the API reference. The endpoint line slightly restates the three required parameters already in the schema, but it does anchor the agent to the docs for deeper questions.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers what is destroyed and what is preserved, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. Missing only error-case behavior (nonexistent grant, insufficient permission) and confirmation of the empty response body.

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 100%, including a detailed account_id note about 403 semantics, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The endpoint template in the description maps the three parameters onto path segments, which is minor reinforcement rather than new meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (revokes) and resource (a member's grant over one company), and immediately bounds the scope: grants over the account's other companies are untouched. That scope sentence is what separates it from beel_delete_member (removes the membership entirely) and beel_put_member_grant (adds a grant), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: the scoping sentence tells the agent this is the narrow, single-company revocation, which is a real selection cue. But no sibling is named and there is no explicit when/when-not framing (e.g. 'use beel_delete_member to remove the member from the account entirely').

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