Agent Chef

Remove a member

remove_member

Destructive

Remove a household member by name from Agent Chef. Their votes and ratings on past weeks remain intact, and the owner cannot be removed.

Instructions

Remove a household member by name (their votes and ratings stay attached to past weeks). The owner can't be removed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.1.1Oct 3, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / items / items / properties / has_account

Added value: +{
+  "description": "True once this member has signed in to Agent Chef with their own account",
+  "type": [
+    "boolean",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / items / items / properties / push_subscribed

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Has a device opted in to push notifications",
+  "type": [
+    "boolean",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / items / items / properties / role / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "enum": [
-      "owner",
-      "member"
-    ],
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "enum": [
+      "owner",
+      "admin",
+      "member"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / items / items / properties / role / description

Added value: +"owner = primary owner; admin = runs the household like the owner; member = votes, rates and browses"

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: past votes and ratings remain attached to prior weeks, and the owner is protected. It omits whether removal is reversible or requires confirmation, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and identifier, then the two constraints. Every clause carries information; nothing is restated from the title or schema.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the destructive profile. The description supplies the key domain semantics (history preserved, owner protected); only reversibility and failure behavior are left unaddressed for a destructive mutation.

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 single 'name' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. 'By name' confirms the parameter is the member identifier, but adds no matching rules (exact vs partial, case sensitivity) or collision handling, leaving real ambiguity for a 0%-coverage param.

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?

States a specific verb (Remove) and resource (household member) plus the identifying argument (by name), which cleanly separates it from get_members and upsert_member. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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 precondition 'the owner can't be removed' is a useful exclusion, but the description never names an alternative (e.g., upsert_member for edits) or states when removal is the right call versus deactivating/renaming a member. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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