Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_end_management

DestructiveIdempotent

Stop managing a provisioned account and transfer ownership to its holder. The holder retains the account and NIFs, and their usage no longer counts toward your bill. Reversible only before the holder claims it.

Instructions

Ends the management relationship over an account you provisioned: you lose access to it, and its NIFs stop counting towards your billable usage from the next billing cycle.

  • The holder: keeps the account, its NIFs and its invoices, and becomes responsible for their own subscription. Nothing is deleted or anonymised.

  • Reversible: only while the account stays unclaimed. Provisioning the same email again reactivates it (see POST /v1/accounts), and only the manager who ended the relationship can do so. Once the holder claims the account it is theirs, and getting the management back needs their consent, not just their email address.

  • Entitlement: requires manage_accounts.

Endpoint: DELETE /v1/accounts/{account_id}/management

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
account_idYes

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining concrete consequences: loss of access, billing-cycle impact, retention of NIFs/invoices by the holder, and that nothing is deleted or anonymised. It also clarifies reversibility and post-claim consent requirements, which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a destructive operation.

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 structured with a clear opening statement followed by focused bullets. Each bullet adds distinct information: holder effects, reversibility, and entitlement. The endpoint line is useful and the whole text has no redundancy.

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, side-effectful operation with no output schema, the description covers consequences, prerequisites, reversibility, and the endpoint. It does not describe failure cases or response semantics, but the essentials for correct invocation and decision-making are present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It ties the single account_id parameter to 'an account you provisioned' and the endpoint path shows its role. It could be even more explicit about how to obtain the ID or what happens with an invalid/non-provisioned account, but the meaning is sufficiently conveyed for one parameter.

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-resource pair: 'Ends the management relationship over an account you provisioned.' It clearly distinguishes itself from related account operations like provisioning or changing access levels, and the explicit endpoint reinforces the action.

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 states the entitlement requirement ('requires manage_accounts') and explains when the operation is reversible, including the condition that the account must stay unclaimed. It references the provisioning endpoint for reactivation, but does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or give a 'when not to use' rule.

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