HAOps MCP Server

haops_update_member_role

Update a project member's role to admin, project_manager, member, or viewer. The owner role cannot be changed.

Instructions

Update a project member's role. Cannot change the owner role.

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": {
      "projectSlug": "<projectSlug>",
      "userId": "<userId>",
      "role": "<role>"
    },
    "name": "haops_update_member_role"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	Yes	New project role
`userId`	Yes	UUID of the member to update
`verbose`	No	If true, return the full API response instead of the compact summary (default: false)
`projectSlug`	Yes	The project slug (URL identifier)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.8.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the action and a constraint, but omits details like required permissions, immediate effects, reversibility, or error scenarios. 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no fluff. The constraint is front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description minimally covers the tool's purpose and a key constraint. However, it lacks details on output, permissions, and side effects, which would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what's in the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: update a project member's role, and explicitly notes a critical constraint (cannot change owner role). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like haops_add_member and other update tools.

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 for role changes, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., haops_add_member for adding, haops_list_members for viewing). The 'Cannot change the owner role' constraint is stated, but no exclusions or context about prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server