marzban-mcp

Put user on hold

marzban_users_hold

Put a Marzban user on hold so their subscription timer starts only after their first connection, ideal for pre-provisioning accounts without consuming validity time.

Instructions

Sets a user's status to on_hold — inactive until their first connection, at which point the on-hold timer starts. Useful for provisioning an account ahead of time without starting its clock.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`username`	Yes
`onHoldExpireDuration`	No	Seconds the user may stay on_hold before expiring, counted from their first connection.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`admin`	No
`links`	No
`expire`	No
`status`	Yes
`proxies`	Yes
`inbounds`	No
`username`	Yes
`next_plan`	No
`online_at`	No
`created_at`	Yes
`data_limit`	No	data_limit can be 0 or greater
`used_traffic`	Yes
`sub_updated_at`	No
`on_hold_timeout`	No
`subscription_url`	No
`excluded_inbounds`	No
`auto_delete_in_days`	No
`sub_last_user_agent`	No
`lifetime_used_traffic`	No
`on_hold_expire_duration`	No
`data_limit_reset_strategy`	No		no_reset

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.2.3Sep 7, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / created_at / format
```
Removed value: -"date-time"
```

removedOutput schema / properties / created_at / pattern

Removed value: -"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z|))$"

changedOutput schema / properties / on_hold_timeout / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "anyOf": [
-      {
-        "format": "date-time",
-        "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z|))$",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      {
-        "type": "null"
-      }
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

changedOutput schema / properties / online_at / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "anyOf": [
-      {
-        "format": "date-time",
-        "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z|))$",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      {
-        "type": "null"
-      }
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

changedOutput schema / properties / sub_updated_at / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "anyOf": [
-      {
-        "format": "date-time",
-        "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z|))$",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      {
-        "type": "null"
-      }
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

First observedv0.2.2Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the on_hold state transition and the first-connection timer trigger. It doesn't cover reversibility or what happens when the timer expires, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core state change comes first, followed by the use case.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the state change and use case, but leaves an important gap: onHoldExpireDuration is optional and the description does not state what happens when it is omitted (e.g., default hold behavior or no expiry). Output schema covers return values, so that is not a concern.

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 already documents onHoldExpireDuration, and the description reinforces its timing semantics. Username has no schema description and is not elaborated, though its role is obvious from the tool name and 'a user's status'. Overall only marginal added meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Sets'), a resource ('a user's status'), and the precise semantic (on_hold, inactive until first connection, then timer starts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like activate/deactivate, which target different user states.

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?

Gives a clear use case: provisioning an account ahead of time without starting its clock. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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

Deploy Server