Skip to main content
Glama

fc_remove_space_member

Remove a user from a FluentCommunity space by specifying the space ID and user ID to manage community membership effectively.

Instructions

Remove a user from a space

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
space_idYesThe space ID
user_idYesThe user ID to remove

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that executes the tool by sending a DELETE request to remove a user from a FluentCommunity space via WordPress API.
    fc_remove_space_member: async (args: any) => {
      try {
        const response = await makeWordPressRequest('DELETE', `fc-manager/v1/spaces/${args.space_id}/members/${args.user_id}`);
        return { toolResult: { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(response, null, 2) }] } };
      } catch (error: any) {
        return { toolResult: { isError: true, content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Error: ${error.message}` }] } };
      }
    },
  • Zod input schema defining parameters for the fc_remove_space_member tool: space_id and user_id.
    const removeSpaceMemberSchema = z.object({
      space_id: z.number().describe('The space ID'),
      user_id: z.number().describe('The user ID to remove')
    });
  • Tool registration in the fluentCommunityTools array, defining name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: 'fc_remove_space_member',
      description: 'Remove a user from a FluentCommunity space',
      inputSchema: { type: 'object', properties: removeSpaceMemberSchema.shape }
    },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Remove') but lacks critical details: whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, if it triggers notifications, error conditions (e.g., invalid IDs), or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, or error handling, nor does it explain what happens post-removal (e.g., user access loss). Given the complexity of member removal operations, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format constraints, examples, or relationships between parameters). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and target resource ('a user from a space'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'fc_delete_post' or 'fc_delete_comment' beyond the specific resource type, nor does it specify if this is a soft or hard removal.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user must be a current member), exclusions (e.g., cannot remove the last admin), or related tools like 'fc_list_space_members' for verification. The description is purely functional without contextual usage advice.

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/wplaunchify/fluent-community-mcp'

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