Remove a member from a team. Find the team by name or ID, and the user by name or email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | User name or email to remove | |
| team_id | No | Team ID (optional if team_name is provided) | |
| team_name | No | Team name (optional if team_id is provided) |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'removes' a member, implying a destructive action, but it does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions (e.g., team not found), permissions required, or irreversibility. This is a significant gap 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the understanding: the action, the target, and the identification strategy. There is no unnecessary filler.
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?
The tool is relatively simple with 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core action and identification logic, but lacks important contextual details such as what happens if the team or user is not found, whether the removal is permanent, and any permission requirements. Without annotations, this makes the description minimally viable but not complete.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a summary of the parameter usage ('Find the team by name or ID, and the user by name or email'), reinforcing the schema but not introducing new semantic details. It also introduces slight ambiguity by implying both team_id and team_name are needed, while the schema marks them optional.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Remove a member from a team.' It uses a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('team member'), and the clarification about finding the team by name/ID and user by name/email distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_user_from_org (which removes from the org) and add_team_member (which adds).
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?
The description provides clear context on how to use the tool: identify the team by name or ID and the user by name or email. This gives practical guidance, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like remove_user_from_org. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it for team-level removals.
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.
Most tools have distinct resource+action pairs (e.g., create_task vs update_task vs delete_task), but the large number of list/get/search tools creates some potential confusion, especially between get_context, search_entities, and find_documents. Descriptions are detailed and help, but the volume makes navigation less clear.
The majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, list_, update_, etc.), with clear prefixes like add/remove and link/unlink. Deviations like 'whoami', 'find_documents' vs 'search_entities', and 'setup_organization' prevent a perfect score.
62 tools is far beyond the typical MCP server scope and overwhelms agents with too many choices. Even if each tool is individually useful, the sheer count makes it difficult for an agent to efficiently select the right tool, increasing the likelihood of misselection.
The domain is well covered for projects, tasks, teams, sessions, and notifications, but there are notable gaps: no update_document, no get_task (only list/update/delete), no get_user, no reject_invite, and sprint management lacks update/delete operations. Core CRUD is present for many entities, but not all.
