remove_memberRevoke a brand workspace member's access by email. Confirm the exact person with the user first, then pass confirm:true to remove them.
Remove a member from this brand workspace by email — they lose access (you can re-invite them later). Confirm the exact person with the user, then call with confirm:true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | the member’s email | ||
| confirm | No | REQUIRED true |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.161Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'they lose access' explains the destructive consequence, and '(you can re-invite them later)' clarifies reversibility. It also specifies the confirmation requirement. This goes beyond the bare destructiveHint and readOnlyHint flags, with no contradiction.
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?
Two tightly written sentences. The first delivers the core action and consequence; the second provides the required confirmation workflow. No filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 two-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the action, effect, reversibility, and the confirm requirement. With annotations already conveying destructiveness and idempotency, the only minor gap is what happens for a non-existent email or error cases, but this is not critical for a tool this straightforward.
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 email and confirm thoroughly. The description does reinforce that email identifies the member and that confirm must be true, but it does not add significant new parameter semantics beyond the structured definitions.
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 and resource: 'Remove a member from this brand workspace by email'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like invite_member and set_role by emphasizing removal and the loss of access, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 gives useful context for when to use the tool (removing a member, with reversibility noted) and a clear workflow: confirm the person with the user, then pass confirm:true. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus siblings like set_role or invite_member.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.