OpenAPI MCP Gateway

Delete user resource.

delete_user

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a user account by providing the username. Requires authentication to perform this action.

Instructions

This can only be done by the logged in user.

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": {
      "username": "<username>"
    },
    "name": "delete_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`username`	Yes	The name that needs to be deleted

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.6.2Aug 11, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / username / title
```
Removed value: -"Username"
```
- removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"upstream_callableArguments"
```
First observedv1.0.0Jun 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that authentication is required, which is not captured in annotations. However, it does not clarify the scope (e.g., whether the logged-in user can delete any username or only themselves) or the consequences of deletion.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is perfectly concise, even though it is under-specified in content.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-parameter delete tool, the annotations and schema cover several aspects, and the description adds the auth requirement. However, the ambiguity about whether the logged-in user can delete arbitrary users or only their own account is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the username parameter is well-described as 'The name that needs to be deleted'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description does not explicitly state that the tool deletes a user; it only mentions a condition ('can only be done by the logged in user'). The title and tool name carry the actual purpose, but the description itself is vague about the core action.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides a prerequisite (must be logged in) but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or what distinguishes it from other delete operations among the siblings.

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