Remove a member from the workspace. Cannot remove the workspace owner or admins (admin removal requires the workspace settings UI). This action is irreversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memberId | Yes | ||
| workspaceId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation destructive, non-read-only, and non-idempotent. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by warning that the action is irreversible and by disclosing the owner/admin restriction. It does not detail downstream effects on member data, but the key risk is covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences front-load the action and then add two high-value caveats: the owner/admin restriction and irreversibility. There is no filler, and every sentence contributes essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter destructive action with annotations already covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description provides the core operational context: what is removed, who cannot be removed, and that it is irreversible. It could add a note about expected return/confirmation, but that is not strictly necessary without an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the missing parameter explanations. It does not mention memberId or workspaceId at all. The parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, and 'from the workspace' loosely maps to workspaceId, but no additional format, ownership, or identification guidance is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a member from the workspace.' It clearly scopes the action to workspace membership and explicitly states what cannot be removed (owner/admins), distinguishing it from sibling tools like invite_member, update_member_role, and revoke_invitation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states when not to use this tool: the workspace owner and admins cannot be removed, and admin removal requires the workspace settings UI. However, it does not name alternative tools for related cases such as revoking an invitation, so it stops short of full alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools share the same verb prefix (create_, list_, update_, get_) across closely related resources, so pairs like add_lead_to_external_list vs add_lead_to_sequence, create_signal_agent vs create_signal_watch, and approve_review vs approve_content_post can be confused. The descriptions are unusually detailed and cross-referenced, which mitigates but does not eliminate the ambiguity inherent in a 282-tool surface.
Virtually every tool follows the campaignstack_verb_noun snake_case pattern, which is highly predictable. Minor deviations exist: destructive operations mix remove_ and delete_ (remove_lead_list vs delete_campaign), AI generation uses both craft_ and generate_, and the seo_/search_console_ subdomains introduce a second prefix convention.
282 tools is an extreme mismatch by any reasonable standard, exceeding the 50+ threshold by more than 5x. Even for a full B2B outreach platform, this surface is far too large and would be better consolidated into higher-level operations or grouped sub-servers.
The tool surface is impressively comprehensive, covering campaigns, workflows, leads, content, ads, SEO, integrations, billing, and more with CRUD-level depth. Minor gaps remain: no single-ICP getter, no direct pause/delete for search watches, and no explicit delete for ad campaigns (only archive via update).
