pbi_delete_role
Delete a role by name from a Power BI semantic model to manage access.
Instructions
Delete a model role.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Delete a role by name from a Power BI semantic model to manage access.
Delete a model role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose destructiveness, side effects (e.g., cascading deletion of members), required permissions, or reversibility. This is insufficient for a delete operation.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it is overly minimal, trading conciseness for clarity and completeness. It earns no extra credit for brevity at the expense of substance.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or side effects. For a deletion tool, details on confirmation, error handling, or impact on related entities are missing. The description is inadequate.
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 single parameter 'name' is documented only by its type in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning, such as what the name represents or how to specify it. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a significant 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 'Delete a model role' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (model role). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like pbi_create_role or pbi_add_role_member. However, it does not elaborate on the exact scope or implications.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pbi_remove_role_member or pbi_create_role. The description lacks context for appropriate use, prerequisites, or contraindications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/imnotStealthy/powerbi-mcp-local'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server