MCPDactyl

Remove a subuser

subuser_delete

Remove a user's access to a specified Pterodactyl server by deleting their subuser permissions, with optional panel or API credential overrides.

Instructions

Remove a user's access to the server.

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": {
      "server": "<server>",
      "user": "<user>"
    },
    "name": "subuser_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`user`	Yes
`panel`	No	Name of a saved panel. Omit to use the active or default panel.
`server`	Yes
`baseUrl`	No	Inline panel URL override, e.g. https://panel.example.com. Not persisted.
`clientKey`	No	Inline client API key (ptlc_…) override. Not persisted.
`applicationKey`	No	Inline application API key (ptla_…) override. Not persisted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey the behavioral profile. It implies a destructive mutation by saying 'Remove,' but does not disclose irreversibility, confirmation requirements, authorization needs, or what specifically is removed beyond server access.

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 with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to the broader completeness gap rather than being a structural flaw.

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?

For a destructive six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should at least clarify deletion consequences, required identifiers, and whether the operation affects only server access or the subuser account itself.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 67%, and the description adds no format or semantic detail for the six parameters. It vaguely maps to the required user and server fields but does not clarify identifiers, panel selection, or override parameters.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: removing a user's access to a server. It is clear enough to distinguish this from creation or update siblings, though it does not explicitly name subuser_delete versus subuser_update or subuser_set_files.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related subuser tools, nor any prerequisites such as required permissions. The usage is only implied by the phrase 'Remove a user's access.'

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

Deploy Server