Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_end_management

DestructiveIdempotent

End the management relationship for an account you provisioned, removing your access and stopping its NIFs from counting toward your next billable cycle.

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_idYesIdentifier (UUID) of an account you manage. An account you do not manage answers exactly like one that does not exist, so its existence is never disclosed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / account_id / description
      Added value: +"Identifier (UUID) of an account you manage. An account you do not manage answers exactly like one that does not exist, so its existence is never disclosed."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  3. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing what is lost, what the holder retains, that nothing is deleted or anonymised, and the precise reversibility boundary (only while unclaimed, only by the ending manager). This is exactly the kind of mutation context annotations alone cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded verb phrase followed by tight, labeled bullets (holder, reversible, entitlement) plus the endpoint. Every line carries information an agent needs; no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description supplies the outcome semantics an agent needs: access loss, billing effect timing, and third-party impact on the holder. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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% and the account_id description already documents format, ownership requirement, and the non-disclosure behavior for unmanaged accounts. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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+resource+scope: 'Ends the management relationship over an account you provisioned,' which is immediately distinguishable from siblings like beel_provision_account and beel_change_managed_access_level. The endpoint line pins the operation further.

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?

Gives concrete context for acting (you lose access, NIFs stop counting, you must hold manage_accounts) and explains the holder-side consequences. It does not, however, name an explicit alternative such as beel_change_managed_access_level for agents wanting to downgrade rather than end the relationship.

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