mcp-max-messenger

Remove Admin

remove_admin

Revoke admin rights from a chat member, demoting them to regular member. The bot must be an admin or owner of the chat.

Instructions

Revoke admin rights from a chat member. They remain a regular member. The bot must be an admin or owner of the chat. KNOWN MAX API BUG: The API returns success:true but rights may not actually be revoked. This is a confirmed issue on the MAX side — only the chat owner can reliably remove admin rights manually in the app.

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": {
      "chat_id": "<chat_id>",
      "user_id": "<user_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_admin"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chat_id`	Yes	The chat_id of the group chat
`user_id`	Yes	The user_id to revoke admin rights from

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.2Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the effect (member remains regular) and a critical known bug where success:true may be misleading. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then result, then important caveat. No filler words. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers core behavior, required bot perms, and critical bug. Lacks output format or verification steps, but given simple 2-param tool with no output schema, it is fairly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add new information beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It mentions bot requirement, but that is not parameter-specific.

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 'Revoke admin rights from a chat member' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like set_admin and remove_member, which are listed in sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit requirement: 'The bot must be an admin or owner of the chat.' It also warns about a known API bug, guiding usage expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.

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