Archive a user by ID to prevent sign-in and project assignments while preserving their historical data. Deactivates access without deleting past records.
Archive a user. Archive a user using its unique identifier.
Archived users can no longer sign in or be assigned to projects and test runs, but their historical data is preserved.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot express: archived users cannot sign in or be assigned to projects/test runs, and historical data is retained. It stops short of stating whether the action is reversible or what permissions are required.
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 first two sentences are near-duplicates ('Archive a user. Archive a user using its unique identifier.'), which is wasted space in a short description. The third sentence is the only one that earns its place, so structure is adequate but not front-loaded efficiently.
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-parameter mutation where annotations carry the destructive/idempotency profile and no output schema exists, the description covers the essential effect and data-retention consequence. It omits permission requirements and reversibility, which keeps it just short of complete.
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?
Only one parameter, and the schema already describes it as 'The user identifier.' The description's phrase 'using its unique identifier' restates that without adding format, scope, or lookup detail. With no enrichment beyond the schema, this sits at the baseline.
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 (archive) and resource (user), and names the identifier as the targeting mechanism. However, it offers no differentiation from adjacent lifecycle siblings such as delete_user, put_user, or make_admin_user, so an agent must infer that this is a soft/state-changing operation rather than a removal.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description never tells the agent how this differs from delete_user or what precondition (e.g. user must be active, admin privileges) applies before archiving.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.