Remove a player from its current group. If the player is the group leader, the group is disbanded; otherwise, the player simply detaches from the group.
Fully remove a player from whatever group it's in, whether it's the leader (this disbands the group) or a follower (this just detaches it).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| player | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It explicitly says that removing a leader disbands the group and removing a follower detaches it, which is clear behavioral transparency, though it does not cover error cases like a player not in any group.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and uses a parenthetical to efficiently explain the leader/follower distinction. No unnecessary words are included.
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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core behavior and conditional side effects. It does not address output or failure behavior, but that is not essential given the tool's simplicity and lack of an output schema.
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 only parameter, `player`, has no schema description and the tool description does not clarify what format or identifier is expected (e.g., player ID, name, or UUID). The description adds little beyond the parameter name itself.
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 clearly states the action: fully remove a single player from its group. It also distinguishes leader versus follower outcomes, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool—when a single player should be removed from a group—but it does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling `ungroup_players` tool or state when one should be preferred over the other.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.