Remove a member from a project by providing the project ID and user ID to update team access.
Remove a member from a project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes | ID of the user to remove | |
| projectId | Yes | ID of the project to update |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | No | ||
| success | No | ||
| projectId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds minimal behavioral insight beyond annotations. Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive, but description doesn't clarify implications.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with action and object.
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 removal tool with full schema and output schema, description is adequate but could mention expected results or prerequisites.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions; description adds no extra meaning. Baseline score applies.
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?
Description clearly states the action 'Remove' and the resource 'a member from a project', distinguishing it from sibling like linear_addProjectMember.
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 on when to use versus alternatives, prerequisites, or error handling. Implied usage but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.