Revoke a directly-granted role from a user by specifying the user and role. Resolve access permission issues by removing unwanted role assignments.
Revoke a directly-granted role from a user. Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | Yes | Role sys_id or name | |
| user | Yes | User sys_id, user_name, or email |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.15.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description contradicts the annotations: it describes a mutating operation (revoking a role) while the readOnlyHint annotation is true. This is a serious inconsistency that would confuse an agent about the tool's side effects. The 'Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true' also implies a write operation, reinforcing the contradiction.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and includes a key prerequisite. There is no extraneous information.
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?
While the parameters are fully covered by the schema, the tool lacks usage guidance and contains a critical contradiction with its annotations. For a simple two-parameter tool, this is still incomplete because the behavioral contradiction undermines reliable invocation.
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 (role and user) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Revoke' and the resource 'a directly-granted role from a user', which is specific and distinguishes it from generic operations. It also implies a scope (directly-granted) that adds clarity, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like grant_role or list_user_roles. The only condition mentioned is 'Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.