CustomerDashboard

Delete a customer

delete_customer

Destructive

Permanently remove a customer from a multi-customer dashboard, along with all of their logins. They lose access immediately. Calling this without confirm returns a preview. This cannot be undone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	No	Set to true only after the user has seen what will be deleted and explicitly agreed. Calling without it returns a preview instead of deleting.
`confirmName`	No	The exact current name of the item being deleted, copied from the preview. Required alongside confirm.
`dashboardId`	Yes	Dashboard id.
`customerRecordId`	Yes	The customer's id from list_customers.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: permanent removal, cascading deletion of all logins, immediate loss of access, preview-without-confirm behavior, and irreversibility. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and fully discloses the tool's consequences.

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 four tightly constructed sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds essential information: scope, immediacy, preview behavior, and irreversibility, with the most important consequence front-loaded.

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?

For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the confirmation workflow, the cascading deletion, and irreversibility. It does not spell out what the preview response contains or explicitly mention the need to echo confirmName from the preview, but the schema already documents confirmName's source, making this a minor gap.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters and their roles, including confirm and confirmName semantics. The description reinforces the preview/confirm behavior but does not add substantial parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific action and resource: permanently removing a customer from a multi-customer dashboard along with all their logins. It also communicates the behavioral scope ('lose access immediately') and irreversibility, which distinguishes this from delete_customer_user and other delete_* siblings.

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 gives clear procedural guidance on the two-step confirm flow: calling without confirm returns a preview, and deletion requires confirmation. It does not explicitly name alternatives like delete_customer_user, but the scope 'along with all of their logins' implicitly clarifies when this tool is appropriate.

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

All CustomerDashboard tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource+action pair, and descriptions explicitly cross-reference related tools (e.g. update_dashboard points to set_dashboard_theme and publish_dashboard). A few pairs remain close enough to cause hesitation—set_widget_layout vs update_widget's position parameter, and get_started vs get_platform_overview—but their descriptions do separate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently follow verb_noun snake_case with clear resource nouns like customer, dashboard, widget, and data_source. Minor deviations exist between add_* and create_* for creation operations, and set_* versus update_* for mutations, but the overall pattern is still predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 42 tools, the surface is much larger than the 16-25 range that already feels heavy, and several onboarding/catalog helpers (get_started, get_platform_overview, list_plans_and_limits, list_supported_data_connectors, list_widget_types) add to the count. Each tool has a distinct job, but the set would benefit from consolidation or splitting into focused sub-servers.

Completeness4/5

Core lifecycle coverage is strong: dashboards, views, widgets, data sources, customers, and publishing all have create/read/update/delete where relevant, plus test/preview/validation tools. Obvious gaps are customer-user management beyond create/delete (no password reset/update) and no direct way to move a widget between views, but agents can work around these.

Resources

Need Help?