Skip to main content
Glama

delete_project_collaborator

Remove a collaborator from a QuantConnect project by specifying the project ID and collaborator user ID to manage project access.

Instructions

Remove a collaborator from a project.

Args: project_id: ID of the project to remove collaborator from collaborator_user_id: User ID of the collaborator to remove

Returns: Dictionary containing removal result

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
collaborator_user_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The primary handler implementation for the 'delete_project_collaborator' MCP tool. This async function handles authentication, API request to QuantConnect's collaboration/delete endpoint, response parsing, and error handling.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def delete_project_collaborator(
        project_id: int, collaborator_user_id: str
    ) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Remove a collaborator from a project.
    
        Args:
            project_id: ID of the project to remove collaborator from
            collaborator_user_id: User ID of the collaborator to remove
    
        Returns:
            Dictionary containing removal result
        """
        auth = get_auth_instance()
        if auth is None:
            return {
                "status": "error",
                "error": "QuantConnect authentication not configured. Use configure_auth() first.",
            }
    
        try:
            # Prepare request data
            request_data = {
                "projectId": project_id,
                "collaboratorUserId": collaborator_user_id,
            }
    
            # Make API request
            response = await auth.make_authenticated_request(
                endpoint="projects/collaboration/delete", method="POST", json=request_data
            )
    
            # Parse response
            if response.status_code == 200:
                data = response.json()
    
                if data.get("success", False):
                    return {
                        "status": "success",
                        "project_id": project_id,
                        "collaborator_user_id": collaborator_user_id,
                        "message": f"Successfully removed collaborator {collaborator_user_id} from project {project_id}",
                    }
                else:
                    # API returned success=false
                    errors = data.get("errors", ["Unknown error"])
                    return {
                        "status": "error",
                        "error": "Failed to remove project collaborator",
                        "details": errors,
                        "project_id": project_id,
                        "collaborator_user_id": collaborator_user_id,
                    }
    
            elif response.status_code == 401:
                return {
                    "status": "error",
                    "error": "Authentication failed. Check your credentials and ensure they haven't expired.",
                }
    
            else:
                return {
                    "status": "error",
                    "error": f"API request failed with status {response.status_code}",
                    "response_text": (
                        response.text[:500]
                        if hasattr(response, "text")
                        else "No response text"
                    ),
                }
    
        except Exception as e:
            return {
                "status": "error",
                "error": f"Failed to remove project collaborator: {str(e)}",
                "project_id": project_id,
                "collaborator_user_id": collaborator_user_id,
            }
Behavior2/5

Does 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. While 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't specify permissions required, whether the action is reversible, side effects (e.g., notifications), or error conditions. The return value is mentioned but not detailed, leaving behavioral gaps 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each section adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the Args explanations into a single sentence.

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?

Given a mutation tool with no annotations, 2 parameters, and an output schema (implied by Returns), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral details (permissions, reversibility) and doesn't fully leverage the output schema to explain the 'removal result' dictionary. More context would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly lists both parameters with brief explanations ('ID of the project to remove collaborator from', 'User ID of the collaborator to remove'), adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't cover format constraints (e.g., integer/string validation) or examples.

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 the specific action ('Remove a collaborator from a project') with the exact resource ('project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_project_collaborator' and 'update_project_collaborator'. The verb 'Remove' is precise and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the user must be a project owner), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'update_project_collaborator' or 'delete_project'. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/taylorwilsdon/quantconnect-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server