Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es

beel_patch_member

Change an account member's role between ADMIN and MEMBER to grant or revoke administrative access.

Instructions

Changes a member's account_role between ADMIN and MEMBER.

  • OWNER: not an assignable value here. An account has exactly one owner, and ownership is handed over only through PUT /v1/accounts/{account_id}/owner, which promotes the new owner and steps the current one down in the same operation.

  • Last owner: the account's last OWNER cannot be demoted.

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
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. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • changedInput schema / $defs / AccountRole / description
      Previous value: -"Who administers the account. Independent of `access_level`, which says how much access someone has to a given company (NIF).\n\n`OWNER` — full control, including billing, API keys and transferring ownership. Exactly one per account, so it is never an accepted value when you SET a role (inviting a member or changing one's role): both reject it with `422 OWNER_ROLE_NOT_ASSIGNABLE`. Ownership moves only through `PUT /v1/accounts/{account_id}/owner`.\n`ADMIN` — everything an `OWNER` can do, except transferring ownership.\n`MEMBER` — no account administration. Access to each company is granted individually and reported as `access_level`; a member only sees the companies granted to them."New value: +"Who administers the account. Independent of `access_level`, which says how much access someone has to a given company.\n\n`OWNER` — full control, including billing, API keys and transferring ownership. Exactly one per account, so it is never an accepted value when you SET a role (inviting a member or changing one's role): both reject it with `422 OWNER_ROLE_NOT_ASSIGNABLE`. Ownership moves only through `PUT /v1/accounts/{account_id}/owner`.\n`ADMIN` — everything an `OWNER` can do, except transferring ownership.\n`MEMBER` — no account administration. Access to each company is granted individually and reported as `access_level`; a member only sees the companies granted to them."
    • addedInput schema / $defs / ChangeMemberRoleRequest / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish this is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: OWNER is not assignable, exactly one owner exists per account, ownership only changes via a specific endpoint, and the last owner cannot be demoted. It does not cover response behavior, but for a simple role-change mutation this is sufficient.

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 compact, well-organized into a main line and two clarifying bullets, and ends with the exact endpoint. Every sentence carries information; there is no repetition of schema content or annotation hints.

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 three-parameter PATCH tool, the description covers the core purpose, the key role constraints, and the endpoint. The input schema fills in parameter details and body shape. A stated response shape would be nice since there is no output schema, but it is not required for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The description adds meaningful parameter semantics by explicitly restricting `account_role` to ADMIN and MEMBER, and by warning that the last owner cannot be demoted. The schema's enum includes OWNER, so this clarification is important and prevents a likely wrong call. Other parameters (`account_id`, `member_id`) are already adequately documented 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 and resource: it changes a member's `account_role`, and it narrows the scope to ADMIN vs MEMBER, which clearly distinguishes it from any other member-related operation. The endpoint line further anchors exactly what is patched.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says when NOT to use this tool: assigning the OWNER role is not allowed here, and ownership transfer must go through `PUT /v1/accounts/{account_id}/owner`. This gives the agent a clear decision rule for rerouting to the correct alternative.

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