NexTool MCP for GLPI

Remove user from ticket

glpi_delete_ticket_user

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a user-ticket link by Ticket_User ID to correct assignments or revoke access. Retrieve the ID via glpi_list_ticket_users first, then delete with an audit reason.

Instructions

Remove a user-ticket link by Ticket_User ID (get the ID from glpi_list_ticket_users).

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": {
      "ticketUserId": "<ticketUserId>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "glpi_delete_ticket_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reason`	Yes	Why this item is being deleted (audit trail, required)
`ticketUserId`	Yes	Ticket_User link ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.2Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the ID-provenance hint and says nothing about irreversibility, permission requirements, or what the audit reason is used for, so it adds limited context.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource and parenthesizes the only non-obvious prerequisite. Zero wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the mutation/idempotency profile. With two fully documented parameters, the definition is essentially complete; only a note about the effect of removing a link would add value.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both ticketUserId and reason are already documented in the schema, with reason's audit-trail purpose and 10-char minimum made explicit there. The description adds only the sourcing note for ticketUserId, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Remove) and resource (user-ticket link) plus the exact identifier semantics (Ticket_User ID). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like glpi_add_ticket_user and glpi_delete_ticket_group.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where to obtain the required ID (glpi_list_ticket_users), which is the key prerequisite for calling this. It does not state when-not to use it or name alternative removal paths, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server