Skip to main content
Glama
thenavidm

Gumloop MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Manage workspace users

manage_project_users
Destructive

Add or remove users from a Gumloop workspace as an organization admin. Confirm each action to avoid unintended account changes or credit spend.

Instructions

This endpoint allows organization administrators to add or remove users from a workspace. Explicit confirmation is required for this exact account operation. Runs can spend credits or trigger downstream actions; never resubmit unknown outcomes automatically.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionNoThe action to perform - either 'add' or 'remove' a user.
accountNoNamed private Gumloop account; selects private credentials and user/team identity.
confirmNoSet true only when the user asked for exactly this action.
payloadNoComplete JSON request body instead of body flags. Preserves current endpoint fields and values.
user_idNoYour user id -- you must be an organization admin to manage workspace users.
is_adminNoWhen adding a user, specify whether they should have admin privileges (default is false).
user_emailNoThe email address of the target user to add or remove.
payload_fileNoRegular local JSON body file, at most 5 MB. Cannot be mixed with body flags or payload.
workspace_idNoThe ID of the workspace to manage users for.
organization_idNoThe ID of the organization that the workspace belongs to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description
      Previous value: -"Must be true for this exact requested account change, agent/flow execution, upload or deletion."New value: +"Set true only when the user asked for exactly this action."
  2. First observedv2.0.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds auth requirements (admin role) and a warning about credits/downstream actions plus avoiding automatic resubmission of unknown outcomes—useful, but somewhat generic and not specific to this endpoint's actual side effects.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the confirmation requirement, then the caution. Efficient, though the last sentence is a generic boilerplate warning that could apply to many tools.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with nested payload, multiple input modes (flags, payload, file), no output schema, and destructive semantics, the description is adequate but thin. It doesn't explain the interplay of payload vs flags vs payload_file, which is a significant omission for correct invocation.

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 the schema fully documents all 10 parameters including the nested payload and file alternatives. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline case.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: adding or removing users from a workspace, scoped to organization administrators. It's clear, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the highly related sibling manage_permission_group_users.

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?

It names the actor (organization administrators) and requires explicit confirmation, which implies usage context. But it doesn't state when to use this versus alternatives like manage_permission_group_users, nor when not to use it.

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