Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-server-rt

mcp-server-rt

Official
by bestpractical
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

remove_group_member

Destructive

Remove a user or subgroup from a Request Tracker group using the group's numeric ID and the member's ID.

Instructions

Remove a user from a group

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "member_id": "<member_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_group_member"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesNumeric group ID (RT has no name route for groups)
member_idYesUser or group ID to remove

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description states the core destructive action (removing a member), which is consistent with destructiveHint=true. But it adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation—no mention of irreversibility, permission requirements, or side effects. The annotation already signals destructiveness.

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?

A single action-first sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the description is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter removal tool.

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 simple mutation with complete parameter documentation and a destructive annotation, this is nearly sufficient. The main gap is the description's 'user' wording versus the schema's broader 'user or group ID', which could slightly mislead an agent, and there's no mention of the return value, though no output schema is expected for such an operation.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with useful descriptions, including the numeric group ID constraint and the fact that member_id can be a user or group ID. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description has a specific verb and resource: 'Remove' a 'user from a group'. It clearly contrasts with sibling tools like add_group_members and list_group_members. However, 'user' is slightly imprecise because the schema allows member_id to be a user or group ID.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool or how it relates to alternatives such as add_group_members or manage_queue_watchers. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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