Skip to main content
Glama
BeeL MCP server

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es

beel_end_management

DestructiveIdempotent

Ends management of a provisioned account, removing your access and stopping its NIFs from counting toward billable usage from the next billing cycle while the holder retains the account.

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.

BeeL API endpoint: DELETE /v1/accounts/{account_id}/management (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>"
    },
    "name": "beel_end_management"
  }
}

Input 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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the real blast radius: the holder keeps the account, NIFs and invoices, nothing is deleted or anonymised, and billing impact starts next cycle. It also discloses the reversibility mechanism and consent requirement after claiming, which annotations cannot express.

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 summary sentence followed by three tight bullets (holder, reversibility, entitlement) and the endpoint pointer. Every line carries operational value with no restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a destructive, one-parameter mutation without an output schema, the description covers outcome, data preservation, billing effect, reversibility conditions, required entitlement and the underlying endpoint. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already explains that a non-managed account answers identically to a nonexistent one. The description adds no parameter detail, which is acceptable here since the schema carries the full burden and the tool takes only one path-bearing identifier.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Ends the management relationship over an account you provisioned") plus the consequence (loss of access, NIFs stop being billable). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like beel_provision_account, beel_change_managed_access_level and beel_cancel_representation.

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 applicability condition (accounts you provisioned), the reversibility window (only while unclaimed) and the entitlement required (`manage_accounts`). It does not explicitly route the agent to a less drastic sibling such as beel_change_managed_access_level when the goal is only to reduce access, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternative statement.

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