Concrete CMS MCP Server

delete-user-by-id

Destructive

Deletes a user from a Concrete CMS site using the supplied user ID, enabling precise user cleanup and account removal through the REST API.

Instructions

Delete a user by its ID

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": {
      "userID": "<userID>"
    },
    "name": "delete-user-by-id"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`userID`	Yes	ID of user to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0-alpha.1Aug 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known without the description. The description contributes nothing further: it does not say whether deletion is permanent or reversible, whether the user's owned content is orphaned, or what permissions are required, all of which matter for a destructive operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the identifier front-loaded and no padding. It is efficient, though its brevity stems from under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

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, so the description should address irreversibility, side effects, and authorization. It covers none of these, leaving the agent with only the tool name and annotations to reason about the consequences of the call.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("ID of user to delete"), so the schema already carries the full parameter burden. The description adds no format, source, or validation context beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description reads "Delete a user by its ID," which simply restates the tool name and annotation title verbatim without adding scope, target clarification, or any detail beyond the identifier itself. It does convey a verb and resource, but that information is already fully contained in the name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling operations an agent might confuse it with, such as delete-file-by-id, delete-block-by-id, or the related update-user-by-id and get-user-by-id. The agent must infer entirely from the tool name.

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