delete_clientPermanently delete a client from 3x-ui panel by providing the exact email. Use when a client must be removed entirely; this action cannot be undone.
Permanently delete a client by exact email. This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Exact client email/identifier to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'Permanently' and 'cannot be undone,' emphasizing irreversibility beyond the generic destructiveness hint. It also specifies exact matching behavior. No contradiction with annotations; it complements them.
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 short sentences with zero redundancy. The key action and irreversibility are front-loaded, and every word earns its place. Perfectly concise for a single-parameter delete operation.
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 delete tool with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, the description is complete. It states the exact input requirement and the permanence, which are the only operational details an agent needs. Nothing critical is missing.
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?
The schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, documenting 'email' as 'Exact client email/identifier to delete.' The description repeats the 'exact' requirement but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
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 ('delete'), a resource ('client'), and the exact matching criterion ('by exact email'). It clearly distinguishes from delete_inbound and other siblings by focusing on the client resource. The permanence note adds clarity without ambiguity.
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 makes the intended use obvious: deleting a client permanently. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is self-evident and no exclusions are needed for a destructive action. The exact email requirement provides practical guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.