Remove an unwanted team member from your Balena organization by specifying the numeric membership ID and confirming the action.
Remove one team membership by numeric membership ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | Must be true after reviewing the target and consequences | |
| membership_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention irreversibility, permissions, the confirm guardrail, or any error conditions, so it fails to contribute value beyond the structured metadata.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It earns its place but omits critical safety and usage detail, though that omission is a matter of completeness rather than conciseness.
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 destructive mutation with a required confirm flag, the description is incomplete. It does not explain that confirm must be true, that removal is permanent, how to obtain the membership ID, or how this differs from removing an organization member.
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?
The description says 'by numeric membership ID,' but the schema already defines membership_id as an integer. The confirm parameter is not addressed, and with 50% schema description coverage, the description should clarify the parameters further but only restates what is already in the schema.
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 resource ('team membership'), and an identifier ('numeric membership ID'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like remove_organization_member and add_team_member.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as obtaining the membership_id from a list operation. The confirm requirement and the distinction from remove_organization_member are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.