Remove a user from a project by supplying project ID and user ID. Returns an empty dictionary when the removal succeeds.
Remove a user from a project.
Args: project_id: ID of the project user_id: ID of the user to remove
Returns: Empty dict on success
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the return value ('Empty dict on success'), but does not disclose error handling, required permissions, or side effects.
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?
The description is short and well-structured: one sentence for purpose, then Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary words.
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 simple deletion tool with 2 params and a defined output schema, the description covers the basics. However, it lacks context on permissions, error cases, and when not to use it.
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 coverage is 0%, so description should add meaning. It restates parameters as 'ID of the project' and 'ID of the user to remove', which adds little beyond the schema's 'Project Id' and 'User Id' titles.
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?
The description clearly states 'Remove a user from a project.' This uses a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('user') with scope ('from a project'), and the sibling tool 'add_project_user' confirms it is the opposite operation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of consequences or failure cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.