Permanently delete an organization from DefectDojo by specifying its ID. Use this to remove outdated or redundant organization records.
Delete an organization.
Args: organization_id: The organization ID to delete
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| organization_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does almost nothing. It does not state whether deletion is irreversible, whether it cascades to child resources (products, engagements, findings), or what permissions are required — all critical for a destructive tool.
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 short and front-loaded, with the operation stated in the first sentence. The Args block is boilerplate but not bloated.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a destructive, annotation-free tool the description omits the information an agent most needs: irreversibility, cascade scope, and authorization requirements.
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 0% for the single parameter, and the description only restates the name ('The organization ID to delete') without adding type, format, or sourcing information. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete an organization'), which is unambiguous. However, it makes no attempt to differentiate itself from sibling destructive tools like delete_user, delete_product, or delete_engagement, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. For a destructive operation sharing a namespace with create_organization, update_organization, and get_organization, the agent gets no help deciding when deletion is the correct action versus update or deactivation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.