petstore-api.deleteUser
DestructiveIdempotent
Delete user resource.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No | Response from the tool |
agentdevx
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds nothing beyond restating the destructive nature. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as permanence, cascading effects, or error handling, and it does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is appropriately concise for a simple delete operation. It contains no fluff, though it may be excessively terse given the missing usage context.
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?
The tool has no parameters, which is unusual for a delete operation, and the description does not explain how the target user is determined (e.g., via authentication context or a default). It also lacks any mention of the return value or consequences, leaving a critical operational gap for an agent deciding to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since there are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none; no gaps to compensate for.
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 'Delete user resource' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from createUser and updateUser. However, it does not clarify how the user is identified (e.g., by username or ID), which is a minor ambiguity but not fatal for purpose clarity.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of expected input context. The sentence is purely a definition, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
The tools are clearly namespaced by service (e.g., petstore-api, github-api, jsonplaceholder), which reduces cross-service confusion. Within each service, operations are generally distinct (e.g., getPetById vs updatePet). However, some overlap exists like updatePet and updatePetWithForm, and there are multiple 'get' tools across services that could be mixed up in a large set, but descriptions help.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are inconsistent across the set. Some tools use camelCase (github-api.getRepo), others use underscores (acme-mailer.send_email), and some are single simple verbs (echo-server.echo, memory.store). While each service follows its own style, the server as a whole lacks a unified pattern, making the naming chaotic.
Tool Count2/5
With 38 tools, this server is heavily overloaded for a typical MCP scope. The tools span ten different services, indicating a broad aggregation rather than a focused purpose. This exceeds the recommended 3-15 tool range and even the 25+ threshold, making it feel like a collection of unrelated utilities.
Completeness2/5
The domain is unclear, but looking at each sub-service, most are incomplete. For example, github-api only offers read operations (no create/update/delete), jsonplaceholder has posts CRUD but only get for users, and open-weather lacks historical data. Memory and echo-server are trivial. The surface does not fully cover any single domain, leaving significant gaps for agent workflows.