deleteUserDelete existing user by id - By deleting a user he will not be able to access any endpoints or resources any longer. In order to temporarily disable a user please update its enabled attribute.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and not read-only. The description adds meaningful context by stating the consequence: the user will no longer access endpoints or resources. It also provides the alternative update behavior, going beyond the annotation flags.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. The second sentence provides essential usage guidance without wordiness.
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 destructive action, the description covers the main consequence and the alternative, which is sufficient given the annotations and simple schema. It could mention permanence more explicitly, but 'any longer' implies irreversibility. Overall it's complete for an agent to decide.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters. It only says 'by id' without naming the 'userId' parameter or clarifying the required 'x-request-id'. It fails to compensate for the lack of parameter information.
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 action 'Delete existing user by id', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like updateUser, retrieveUser, or createUser. The verb 'delete' and resource 'user' are unambiguous.
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 explicitly provides an alternative for temporary disablement: 'In order to temporarily disable a user please update its `enabled` attribute.' This gives clear guidance on when not to use the delete tool and directs to the appropriate action.
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 have clearly distinct CRUD roles per resource, but there are several confusing overlaps: start/stop/restart/shutdown/rescue are similar lifecycle actions, and there are duplicate audit tools like retrieveImageAuditsList and retrieveImageAuditsList1 (one even mislabeled as DNS Zones audit). Additionally, retrieveTagAuditsList appears to duplicate retrieveAssignmentsAuditsList, and updateDnsZoneRecord incorrectly says 'Create resource record'. These overlaps and mislabeled descriptions make it hard to pick the right tool.
The naming is a mix of camelCase verb_noun patterns, but inconsistent. Some tools use 'retrieveXList' while others use 'listX', some use 'Cancel' with a capital letter, and 'tool_search' uses snake_case. Numeric suffixes like 'retrieveImageAuditsList1' and verbs like 'patchInstance' instead of 'updateInstance' further break consistency.
With 124 tools, this is an extremely large tool surface for an MCP server. Even for a broad cloud provider API, this overwhelms an agent's context and selection capabilities. The number far exceeds reasonable scoping and creates unnecessary selection overhead.
The tool set covers a wide range of resources thoroughly: instances, snapshots, images, private networks, object storage, DNS, domains, tags, roles, users, secrets, and audits. Most resources have create/retrieve/update/delete lifecycle operations, and there are extensive audit history tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit instance deletion besides cancel, no separate firewall management beyond upgradeInstance), but overall the surface is quite complete for its domain.