Microsoft Graph MCP Server

by ry-ops

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

remove_user_from_group

Remove a specified user from a Microsoft 365 group using user and group IDs to manage membership and access.

Instructions

Remove a user from a group

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": {
      "user_id": "<user_id>",
      "group_id": "<group_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_user_from_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`user_id`	Yes	The user ID
`group_id`	Yes	The group ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 2, 2026

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 for a mutation tool, yet it discloses nothing about required permissions (e.g., admin), idempotency, or behavior when the user is not a member of the group. It confirms only that this is a destructive membership change, which the verb already implies.

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 short sentence with no padding, front-loading the action and both entities. Its brevity borders on under-specification rather than waste, but nothing needs to be trimmed.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It is missing error/edge-case behavior (user not in group, invalid IDs) and permission requirements that an agent would need before invoking it.

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 100%, with user_id and group_id documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance (e.g., where to obtain group_id) beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('a user from a group'), so the operation is immediately identifiable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the inverse sibling add_user_to_group, though the name makes the direction obvious.

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 the related sibling add_user_to_group as the inverse operation. The agent must infer the context entirely from the tool name.

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