tailscale_suspend_userImmediately revoke a user's access to the tailnet and disconnect their devices by suspending them. Can be reversed.
Suspend a user, immediately revoking their access to the tailnet. Their devices will be disconnected. Can be reversed with tailscale_restore_user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes | The user ID to suspend |
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, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds concrete consequences beyond the flags: immediate access revocation, device disconnection, and reversibility via a named restore tool. This is meaningful context on top of the annotation envelope, though it doesn't mention auth requirements or any propagation delay.
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 sentences, no padding, consequences front-loaded before the reversal note. Every sentence 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 single-param destructive mutation, the description covers effect scope (tailnet access revocation), side effects (device disconnect), and reversibility. No output schema exists, and the return isn't needed to call it correctly; nothing material is missing.
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 the userId parameter is already documented as 'The user ID to suspend.' The description adds no format or sourcing guidance for the ID, so this is baseline 3 – schema carries it.
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 (suspend) and resource (user), and adds scope detail that distinguishes it: immediate access revocation and device disconnection. Names the sibling tailscale_restore_user, making the pair unambiguous.
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?
Explicitly names the reversal path (tailscale_restore_user), which tells the agent when this is undoable. But it doesn't contrast with other user-state tools in the large sibling set, like tailscale_delete_user or tailscale_approve_user, so the 'when not to use' is only partially covered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.