Skip to main content
Glama
jfrog

JFrog MCP Server

Official
by jfrog

jfrog_delete_permission_target

Remove a permission target from the JFrog platform by specifying its name to manage user access and permissions effectively.

Instructions

Delete a permission target from the JFrog platform

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe name of the permission target to delete

Implementation Reference

  • Tool registration for 'jfrog_delete_permission_target', including description, input schema, and handler function that calls deletePermissionTarget.
    const deletePermissionTargetTool = {
      name: "jfrog_delete_permission_target",
      description: "Delete a permission target from the JFrog platform",
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(z.object({
        name: z.string().describe("The name of the permission target to delete")
      })),
      // //outputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(z.object({
      //   success: z.boolean()
      // })),
      handler: async (args: any) => {
        return await deletePermissionTarget(args.name);
      }
    };
  • Core helper function that performs the actual DELETE API request to remove the permission target.
    export async function deletePermissionTarget(name: string) {
      await jfrogRequest(`/access/api/v2/permissions/${name}`, {
        method: "DELETE",
      });
      return { success: true };
    }
  • Module-level registration exporting array of all permissions tools, including jfrog_delete_permission_target.
    export const PermissionsTools = [
      listPermissionTargetsTool,
      getPermissionTargetTool,
      createPermissionTargetTool,
      updatePermissionTargetTool,
      deletePermissionTargetTool,
      getPermissionResourceTool,
      updatePermissionResourceTool,
      replacePermissionResourceTool,
      deletePermissionResourceTool
    ]; 
  • tools/index.ts:13-23 (registration)
    Global tools array registration that includes PermissionsTools, thereby registering jfrog_delete_permission_target.
    export const tools =[
      ...RepositoryTools,
      ...BuildsTools,
      ...RuntimeTools,
      ...AccessTools,
      ...AQLTools,
      ...CatalogTools,
      ...CurationTools,
      ...PermissionsTools,
      ...ArtifactSecurityTools,
    ];
  • tools/index.ts:10-10 (registration)
    Import of PermissionsTools module containing the jfrog_delete_permission_target tool.
    import { PermissionsTools } from "./permissions.js";
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if deletion is irreversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting access controls), or provides confirmation feedback. This is inadequate for a destructive operation.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like irreversible effects, permission requirements, error handling, or what happens post-deletion (e.g., confirmation). This leaves significant gaps for safe agent use.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, fully documenting the single 'name' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the target is identified by name, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating value.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a permission target from the JFrog platform'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'jfrog_delete_permission_resource' by specifying the target type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions), when deletion is appropriate, or refer to related tools like 'jfrog_list_permission_targets' for selection or 'jfrog_update_permission_target' for modification instead.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jfrog/mcp-jfrog'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server