Remove a member from a room you own by slug or display name. Verify the member identifier first to target the correct person.
Remove a member from a room you own. member = slug or display name (see huddo_members).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as | No | Identity slug to act as (default: the active identity) | |
| room | No | spaceId or index from huddo_list (default: the default room; using it makes it the default) | |
| member | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait — the authorization requirement that the caller must own the room — but says nothing about reversibility, whether the kicked member can rejoin, whether they are notified, or what failure looks like.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the parameter hint second. No filler or redundancy.
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 three-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, authorization, and the ambiguous parameter, which is the minimum viable set. It leaves the effect on the removed member and error/edge behavior unstated.
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 coverage is 67% and the undocumented 'member' parameter is exactly the one the description clarifies ('slug or display name (see huddo_members)'), which adds real value beyond the schema. The other two parameters are already covered by schema descriptions, so the description does its part.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a member from a room') plus an ownership scope, which separates it from huddo_leave (self-removal) and huddo_block. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
Usage is implied by the description and the 'room you own' precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no pointer to huddo_block or huddo_leave as the alternative for related intents. The huddo_members reference only helps resolve a parameter, not select the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.