mcp-remnawave

squads_remove_all_users

Remove all users from an internal squad in one operation using its UUID. Clears the squad's membership instantly, simplifying bulk user management for VPN admins.

Instructions

Remove ALL users from an internal squad (async 202)

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": {
      "squadUuid": "<squadUuid>"
    },
    "name": "squads_remove_all_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`squadUuid`	Yes	Squad UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that the operation is async and returns 202, which is useful. However, since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that removing all users is irreversible or any permission requirements, which for a destructive operation is a notable gap. The core behavior is stated but not its consequences.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key async detail. There is no fluff, and it earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is mostly complete. It identifies the target and the async response, but it could be more explicit about the irreversible nature of the operation and any prerequisites. However, given the simplicity, it covers the essentials.

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?

The schema already provides a description for squadUuid (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Per rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Remove ALL users'), the target ('an internal squad'), and differentiates from similar tools by specifying 'ALL' and 'internal' (vs external). It also notes the async 202 response, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies the tool is for bulk removal of all users from a squad, which distinguishes it from squads_remove_users (which likely removes specific users). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, nor provide exclusion conditions. The context is clear but not fully explicit.

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

Deploy Server