Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
getcourse-mcp

getcourse-mcp

by skiddgoddamn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

gc_remove_from_groups

Remove a user from specified groups to revoke access, preserving other groups. Preview changes with dry run before saving.

Instructions

Убрать пользователя из групп = закрыть доступ (сохраняет остальные группы). dryRun — предпросмотр.

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": {
      "email": "<email>",
      "groupIds": "<groupIds>"
    },
    "name": "gc_remove_from_groups"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesEmail пользователя.
dryRunNoПоказать изменение без сохранения.
groupIdsYesID групп, из которых убрать (= закрыть доступ).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It only mentions removal and dryRun as preview, omitting side effects, permissions, error handling, or what happens if groups don't exist. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is very short (two sentences) and gets to the point quickly. It is concise and front-loaded, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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?

Given no output schema and sibling tools, the description lacks context on success criteria, error scenarios, and prerequisites. It is too minimal for a tool that modifies access rights.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'dryRun — preview' but otherwise repeats schema info. No additional semantic value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'remove user from groups = close access' with the verb 'remove' and resource 'user from groups'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gc_add_to_groups' by specifying removal and preserving other groups.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage (remove user, preserve other groups) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'gc_add_to_groups' or 'gc_add_user_to_groups'. No when-not-to-use criteria are provided.

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