Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
portkey-admin-mcp

portkey-admin-mcp

by CodesWhat
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

delete_user_invite

Destructive

Delete a pending user invite and revoke its invite link without affecting existing users; use full user removal to delete an active user.

Instructions

Delete a pending invite and revoke its invite link. This does not affect existing users; use delete_user for full user removal.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "invite_id": "<invite_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_user_invite"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
invite_idYesThe invite ID to delete

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether the tool call succeeded and returned structured data
dataNoStructured success payload when ok is true
errorNoStructured error payload when ok is false

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.9
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedOutput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Addedv1.0.1
  3. Removed
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: it discloses the side effect that the invite link is revoked, and bounds the blast radius ("does not affect existing users"), which is exactly the context an agent needs before a destructive call. It leaves irreversibility/error behavior on already-accepted invites unstated.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the core action and side effect front-loaded and the sibling routing note placed after. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter destructive delete with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the remaining decision-critical facts: side effect (link revocation), scope (pending invites only, existing users unaffected), and the alternative. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents invite_id. The description adds no format, source, or validation detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 for schema-covered parameters applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (delete a pending invite) plus a consequence (revoke its invite link), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearby sibling delete_user. An agent can tell this apart from delete_user, get_user_invite, resend_user_invite, and list_user_invites without opening any schema.

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?

Names the confusable alternative and the condition that selects it ("use delete_user for full user removal"), which is the main routing risk among these siblings. It does not mention the discovery siblings (list_user_invites/get_user_invite) for obtaining the invite_id, nor behavior for an already-accepted invite, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools