Deletes an existing role by its ID. Remove the role from any assigned users first, because roles still assigned cannot be deleted.
Delete existing role by id [DELETE /v1/roles/{roleId}] You can't delete a role if it is still assigned to a user. In such cases please remove the role from the users.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| roleId | Yes | The identifier of the role | |
| x-trace-id | No | Identifier to trace group of requests. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the genuinely non-obvious failure mode — deletion is blocked by existing user assignments — which an agent could not infer from the schema. It stops short of saying whether deletion is permanent/irreversible or what happens on an unknown roleId.
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?
Two short sentences: the operation and endpoint first, then the blocking condition. Nothing redundant and nothing buried.
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?
For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the key precondition and the remediation path, and the annotations carry the safety profile. A note on irreversibility or the response on a nonexistent role would make it fully complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so both roleId and x-trace-id are already documented in the schema. The description only restates 'by id' and echoes the path template; it adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Delete existing role') plus the exact REST endpoint, which pins down the operation unambiguously. Against a sibling list containing many other delete_* tools (delete_tag, delete_user, delete_secret), the resource noun 'role' is enough to select it without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly names a when-not condition: the role cannot be deleted while still assigned to a user, and the description tells the agent what to do instead ('remove the role from the users'). It does not point at a specific sibling tool (e.g. update_user or retrieve_role_list) for performing that prerequisite step, so it falls short of full alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.