gambot_delete_userPermanently delete an organization user by removing the auth account and profile. Use to fully remove access, but prefer disabling for reversible deactivation.
Permanently delete an organization user (removes both the auth account and the profile). This is irreversible — prefer gambot_disable_user to just deactivate access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is permanent and irreversible, which is the critical behavioral trait for a delete action. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., cascading deletion of related data) or permission requirements, but the core destructive nature is well covered.
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?
Two concise sentences with the action front-loaded and the warning/alternative immediately following. No fluff, every word earns its place.
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 simple one-parameter destructive operation, the description covers the essentials: what it does, irreversibility, and the preferred alternative. It does not describe return values (no output schema) or error conditions, but these are less critical for a delete action. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.
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%, and the description adds no information about the userId parameter. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema description, failing to add meaning beyond the bare type string.
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 tool permanently deletes an organization user, explicitly naming what is removed (auth account and profile). It distinguishes itself from the sibling gambot_disable_user by highlighting irreversibility, so an agent can immediately tell this is the destructive delete operation versus a deactivation.
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?
The description explicitly directs the agent to prefer gambot_disable_user for deactivation, providing a clear when-not-to-use condition. It implicitly defines when to use this tool: when permanent removal is intended. This explicit routing to an alternative is strong usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.