placetel_delete_userDelete a Placetel subuser by ID via DELETE /users/{id} to remove obsolete or unwanted accounts. Destructive action; use with caution.
Delete a subuser. (DELETE /users/{id}) Destructive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Path parameter id. | |
| response_format | No | Output format: 'markdown' (human-readable, default) or 'json' (machine-readable). | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false→destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's single word "Destructive" merely restates the annotation. It does add the DELETE /users/{id} routing detail, but discloses nothing about what happens to the user's numbers, devices, or voicemail, or whether the deletion can be undone.
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?
Three short fragments, front-loaded with the action and no filler. Slightly penalized because the trailing "Destructive." duplicates the annotation rather than adding information the agent did not already have.
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?
This is a destructive mutation with no output schema, and the description says nothing about side effects, cascading effects on related resources, or recoverability. For an irreversible operation in a large sibling set, that is a substantial omission.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in structured fields and the baseline of 3 applies. The description only echoes the path template {id} and adds no disambiguation about which identifier namespace the id belongs to, which matters given the many delete_* siblings.
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?
A specific verb plus resource ("Delete a subuser") with the underlying REST endpoint noted. It is clear what is being removed, though the description never explains how a 'subuser' differs from the sip_user, webex_user, or group deletion siblings present in the tool list.
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?
The description gives no condition for when to use this instead of placetel_delete_sip_user, placetel_delete_webex_user, or an alternative like deactivating the account. There is also no prerequisite or warning about confirming intent before an irreversible removal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.