Delete multiple users by their IDs in one bulk operation, supporting up to 500 IDs per request.
POST /api/users/bulk/delete Bulk delete users by User IDs Tags: Users Bulk Actions Controller
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | Подтверждение выполнения не-GET операции. Без confirm:true возвращается превью запроса (метод, URL, тело) и запрос не отправляется (см. MCP_CONFIRM). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. For a destructive bulk-delete it says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, the confirmation gate, or the 500-user cap. The only behavioral hint (the confirm/preview mechanism) lives in the schema, not the description.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, but it wastes space on the raw POST path and a 'Tags: Users Bulk Actions Controller' string that an agent cannot use. The one meaningful sentence is buried after boilerplate.
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?
A destructive bulk mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested body object. The description omits the confirmation requirement, irreversibility, and any indication of what the call returns, so it is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it safely.
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 50%: the confirm parameter is well documented in the schema while body/userIds is not. The description's 'by User IDs' lightly signals what body expects but adds no format, limit, or batching detail. At the 50% midpoint this is a baseline 3.
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?
States a specific verb (delete), resource (users), and scope (bulk, by User IDs), so the agent can distinguish it from the single-user users_delete_user. However it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from sibling bulk-delete variants such as users_bulk_actions_bulk_delete_users_by_status.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The description never explains when to prefer this over users_delete_user (single) or users_bulk_actions_bulk_delete_users_by_status, leaving routing to be inferred entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.