zyta-sign-mcp

Quitar miembro del estudio

kairo_remove_studio_member

Remove a member from a studio by providing the studio ID and member ID. Requires write permission.

Instructions

Elimina a un miembro del estudio. Requiere scope 'write'.

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": {
      "studioId": "<studioId>",
      "memberId": "<memberId>"
    },
    "name": "kairo_remove_studio_member"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`studioId`	Yes
`memberId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Jun 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only mentions a scope requirement, omitting details such as whether removal is permanent, cascading effects, or if it requires specific permissions. This is insufficient for safe tool invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise (two sentences), but conciseness comes at the cost of missing important details. It earns a 3 as it is not verbose but lacks necessary information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given a simple schema with two required string parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal and fails to provide adequate context about side effects, authorization beyond scope, or expected behavior, making it incomplete for an agent.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not explain what 'studioId' or 'memberId' represent (e.g., format, source), leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 clearly states the tool removes a studio member ('Elimina a un miembro del estudio'). The verb is specific and the resource is explicit, distinguishing it from siblings like 'kairo_add_studio_member' and 'kairo_update_studio_member'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description mentions a required scope ('Requiere scope 'write''), which is a prerequisite, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update or add). Usage context is implied but not elaborated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server