Remove a user or agent from a Standup card by specifying the board, card, and assignee. Clear stale assignments when work is reassigned or no longer owned.
Remove a user or agent from a card.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cardId | Yes | The card identifier | |
| boardId | Yes | The board identifier | |
| assignee | Yes | Username, or agent:<identifier> for a column agent, to remove |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Input schema / properties / assignee / descriptionPrevious value: -"Username to remove"New value: +"Username, or agent:<identifier> for a column agent, to remove"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens if the assignee isn't currently assigned, or what the response looks like. A single sentence is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place, and the purpose is immediately clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple required identifiers, the description is too thin. It omits permission requirements, reversibility, error conditions (e.g., assignee not assigned), and the relationship to the assign_card sibling, leaving the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema, including the special 'agent:<identifier>' syntax for the assignee. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, making 3 the correct baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('a user or agent from a card'), clearly distinguishing it from the assign_card sibling via the opposite operation. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tool, so an agent must infer the relationship from the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage: the description names the operation (removing an assignee) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or prerequisites, such as permission requirements or whether the card must be currently assigned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.