tailscale_delete_device_invitePermanently delete a Tailscale device invite by ID, immediately invalidating the invite link. Use this to revoke access when an invite is no longer needed.
Delete a device invite. This is irreversible — the invite link will stop working.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inviteId | Yes | The device invite ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds concrete consequence detail beyond them: the deletion is irreversible and the invite link stops working. That is genuinely useful behavioral context (no undo). It does not cover error behavior for an unknown inviteId, but the annotations supply the safety profile.
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, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the irreversibility warning. Zero filler and every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, noting the irreversible effect and the invite-link consequence is close to sufficient. Missing only edge-case behavior (e.g. what happens if inviteId does not exist), which is minor.
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% and the single inviteId parameter is already documented in the schema as 'The device invite ID to delete'. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond that, 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 (Delete) and resource (device invite) that mirrors the tool name, so the agent knows exactly what operation it performs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-name siblings such as tailscale_delete_user_invite, tailscale_delete_device, or the create/accept/resend device-invite family.
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 never states when to use this tool versus alternatives — e.g. when to delete an invite instead of resending it (tailscale_resend_device_invite), accepting it (tailscale_accept_device_invite), or deleting the underlying device (tailscale_delete_device). No prerequisites or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.