Remove specific users from an existing FreeIPA group using their UID(s) and group common name.
Remove one or more users from a FreeIPA group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | UID or list of UIDs to remove from the group | |
| group_cn | Yes | The common name (cn) of the group |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this is a mutation ('Remove') but does not state failure semantics (e.g., what happens if a UID is not a member, or whether a partial failure aborts all removals), idempotency, or required permissions. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.
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 sentence that leads with the action verb and scopes the operation cleanly. There is no filler, and every word contributes meaning.
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 two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description plus schema is minimally viable: an agent knows what to pass and the basic effect. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the missing failure behavior and return-value information leave a meaningful gap for a mutating operation on a domain-specific system like FreeIPA.
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 the schema already documents both group_cn and uid, including the uid string-or-array union. The description's 'one or more' reinforces the array variant but adds no format, syntax, or constraint details beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb (Remove), a clear resource (users from a FreeIPA group), and scope ('one or more'), so an agent understands the core operation. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling add_user_to_group via the 'Remove' verb, but never names the alternative explicitly.
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?
The description provides no information about when to use this tool versus add_user_to_group, nor any conditions or prerequisites such as the group needing to exist or the users needing to be current members. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the inverse sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.