Fuul MCP Server

delete_user_referrer

Remove a user's referrer assignment. Preview with dry_run then confirm. Idempotent; already removed returns success. Requires project API key.

Instructions

Remove admin-imported user_referrers row: DELETE /api/v1/user-referrers?user_identifier=&user_identifier_type=. Clears PUT/update_user_referrer assignments (including rows with referral_code_id set but no referral_code_uses). Does NOT touch referral_code_uses or actual_uses. If the user has referral code redemptions in this project, API returns 422 — use remove_user_from_referral_code instead. Maps 422 "User referrer relationship not found" to {already_removed:true} for idempotent retries. Requires service_role project API key. Auth: project API key only (pass project_api_key or set env FUUL_MCP_PROJECT_API_KEY). Dashboard OAuth from fuul-mcp login is not accepted on these routes. dry_run then confirmed. Example dry_run: {"user_identifier":"0xUser...","user_identifier_type":"evm_address","dry_run":true}.

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": {
      "user_identifier": "<user_identifier>",
      "user_identifier_type": "<user_identifier_type>"
    },
    "name": "delete_user_referrer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project_api_key`	No	Project API key used as Bearer for this request. Falls back to FUUL_MCP_PROJECT_API_KEY when omitted.
`dry_run`	No	If true, validate and return a preview only; no server mutation.
`confirmed`	No	Must be true to perform the mutation after reviewing dry_run output.
`user_identifier`	Yes
`user_identifier_type`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.12.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description comprehensively covers behavioral traits: what it clears/destroys, what it does not touch, error handling (422 mapping), auth restrictions (service_role key only, not OAuth), and the dry_run/confirmed workflow.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is moderately long but well-structured with front-loaded main action. It efficiently communicates endpoint, workflow, error handling, and auth. Every sentence adds necessary detail, though could be slightly tightened.

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 no output schema, the description explains error handling and idempotent behavior well. It covers dry_run/confirmed workflow and auth. Lacks explicit success response structure, but overall sufficiently complete for a deletion tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 60%, but the description adds value by providing an example dry_run, explaining the workflow for dry_run and confirmed, and clarifying the user_identifier fields. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions on two parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Remove admin-imported user_referrers row' and includes the HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling 'remove_user_from_referral_code' by specifying when to use that alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use (removing imported referrer) and when not to use (if user has referral code redemptions, use sibling). Also provides guidance on idempotent retry mapping and auth requirements.

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