Removes a user from a project in Semaphore UI using the project ID and user ID.
Removes user from project. DELETE /project/{project_id}/users/{user_id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive, repeatable write. The description adds only the REST endpoint mapping; it says nothing about whether the removed user's tasks, schedules, or permissions are reassigned or lost. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The endpoint clause is mildly redundant but harmless; nothing bloats the description.
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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition is adequate to call it but omits consequences (what access or resources the user loses) and any confirmation/error behavior, which matter for a destructive operation.
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 0% for both parameters, so the description carries the burden, but it only echoes them implicitly via the URL template. It never explains that user_id identifies the member to remove or where project_id comes from, leaving both undocumented.
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 ('Removes user from project'), which implicitly distinguishes it from delete_user (removes from the system) and delete_project (removes the whole project). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like leave_project, update_project_user, or delete_user, nor any prerequisites (e.g., admin rights). The usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.