lab-mcp-identity-server

deactivate_user

Request deactivation of a user account by providing the user ID and a justification. This initiates a pending approval request for authorized review.

Instructions

Request user deactivation (Tier 3). Creates a pending approval; does not execute.

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>",
      "justification": "<justification>"
    },
    "name": "deactivate_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`userId`	Yes	Okta user id
`justification`	Yes	Required justification

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool creates a pending approval and does not execute immediately, which is critical behavioral context. However, it does not mention any additional traits like who can request, what the response looks like, or whether the request can be canceled, leaving some gaps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two short, front-loaded sentences: the first states the action and tier, the second clarifies the deferred execution. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core functionality and behavioral distinction. Some details about the approval workflow or return value would improve completeness, but it is adequate for the agent to understand the tool's purpose and basic behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have clear descriptions: 'Okta user id' and 'Required justification'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Request user deactivation') and the resource ('user'), and specifies the scope ('Tier 3'). It also distinguishes this tool by stating it creates a pending approval and does not execute immediately, which differentiates it from sibling tools like revoke_access or provision_user.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for requesting deactivation with Tier 3 approval, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., revoke_access). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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

Deploy Server