Removes a specified MySQL user from the database, with options to set host and connection, and to skip if the user does not exist.
Remove um usuário do banco de dados
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | Host do usuário | % |
| ifExists | No | Remover apenas se existir | |
| username | Yes | Nome do usuário | |
| connectionName | No | Nome da conexão para usar |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive DDL operation. It does imply removal, but says nothing about permanence, whether owned objects or grants are affected, required privileges, or what happens when the user does not exist (beyond the ifExists flag).
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally fine. However, being this terse for a destructive multi-parameter tool means the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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?
A destructive user-removal tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no guidance on effect or reversibility is not adequately described. The only thing compensating is the 100%-covered input schema, which documents parameters but not behavior.
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 100%, with host, ifExists, username, and connectionName all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a verb (remove) and a resource (user) plus domain context (database), but for a tool named drop_user this is close to decoding the name rather than adding information. It gives no differentiation from siblings such as revoke_privileges or list_users, so an agent gets only a minimal-viable sense of purpose.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives — notably revoke_privileges, which also removes a user's access and is a plausible confusion point. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.