Terminate a member's campaign access by removing their membership capability, preventing further participation in coordinated sessions.
Revoke a campaign membership capability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| binding_token | No | Opaque token returned by this agent's join_session or plan_session. Required for reliable identity when logical agents share an MCP connection. | |
| membership_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens to the member's existing tokens or capabilities. This is a mutating operation but lacks the transparency needed for safe invocation.
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 one-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource, but it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than disciplined brevity. It earns its place but leaves the reader wanting structural detail that close to the definition could have provided.
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?
The tool has one unexplained required parameter and no output schema, yet the description omits critical context such as return values, side effects, required permissions, or how a membership is identified. In its current form it is not complete enough for an agent to invoke confidently without external knowledge.
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 description coverage is only 50%; the required membership_id has no description in the schema, and the tool description does not meaningfully clarify it beyond restating that it relates to a campaign membership. The binding_token is already described in the schema, so the description adds no additional parameter-level value.
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 uses a specific verb ('Revoke') and resource ('campaign membership capability'), and it clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like invite_member and join_campaign by indicating the inverse/removal operation. It could be more concrete about whether the member is fully removed or only loses a capability, but the intent is broadly discoverable.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or the relationship between revoke_member and invitation/join flows, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name and one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.