google-cloud-console-mcp

Remove testers from a project

firebase_appdistribution_remove_testers

Delete tester resources from a Firebase App Distribution project by email. Use it to remove testers entirely and revoke their access to app builds.

Instructions

Deletes tester resources for the given emails from a project entirely.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "emails": "<emails>"
    },
    "name": "firebase_appdistribution_remove_testers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`emails`	Yes
`projectId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Deletes ... entirely' does disclose the destructive, whole-removal nature of the operation, which is the most important behavioral trait. However, it omits permissions required, whether the deletion is reversible, and how non-existent emails are handled.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficient sentence with the destructive action and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-verbose, but structurally clean.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core effect but leaves error behavior, permission requirements, and return semantics unaddressed. Just enough to be usable, not enough to be complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does identify the meaning of the emails input and implies a project scope, but adds no format, cardinality (maxItems 999/minItems 1), or per-item semantics beyond what the parameter names already convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb (deletes), a specific resource (tester resources), and a scope qualifier ('for the given emails', 'from a project entirely'). The phrase 'from a project entirely' implicitly distinguishes it from firebase_appdistribution_remove_testers_from_group, though it does not name that sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as removing testers from a group rather than a project. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name and the bare statement of effect.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server