Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
umami-mcp

umami-mcp

by mikusnuz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

remove_team_user

Removes a specified user from an Umami Analytics team using team and user UUIDs, revoking their team access.

Instructions

Remove a user from a team

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": {
      "teamId": "<teamId>",
      "userId": "<userId>"
    },
    "name": "remove_team_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
teamIdYesTeam UUID
userIdYesUser UUID to remove

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / teamId / format
      Added value: +"uuid"
    • addedInput schema / properties / userId / format
      Added value: +"uuid"
  2. First observedv1.2.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about a destructive membership mutation: whether removal revokes the user's access to the team's websites, whether it is reversible, or what permissions are required. Only the bare action is stated.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Its brevity is a content deficit rather than a structural flaw, which is scored under other dimensions.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a two-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least note side effects (access revocation, related memberships) and the success response shape. None of that is present.

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 coverage is 100%, with both teamId and userId documented as UUIDs including 'User UUID to remove'. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (remove a user from a team), which is unambiguous and separates it from add_team_user and update_team_user by the verb alone. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_team_user, add_team_user, or delete_user, and no prerequisites such as required role or ownership. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools