pocketbase-mcp

Unlink external auth provider

unlink_external_auth

Unlink an OAuth2 provider (like Google or GitHub) from a user record. Enables superusers to remove external authentication associations, controlling sign-in methods.

Instructions

Remove a linked OAuth2 provider from a user record (superuser only).

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": {
      "recordId": "<recordId>",
      "provider": "<provider>"
    },
    "name": "unlink_external_auth"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`provider`	Yes	Provider name (e.g. 'google', 'github').
`recordId`	Yes	User record id.
`collection`	No	Auth collection (default 'users').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes clear that this is a destructive/privileged operation ('Remove', 'superuser only'), but it does not mention side effects such as whether the provider-specific login is immediately revoked, whether it is reversible, or what the response is.

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 sentence that leads with the action and immediately states the access constraint. No redundant wording or filler.

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?

For a simple three-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description provides enough to select and invoke it: the action, target object, and required privilege. The lack of output schema or response details is a minor gap, but not necessary for a straightforward unlink 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents provider, recordId, and collection. The description adds domain context by framing it as OAuth2 against a user record, but it does not elaborate on parameter syntax or defaults beyond the schema.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('a linked OAuth2 provider from a user record'), and sets the scope with 'superuser only'. This clearly differentiates it from list_external_auths and other auth-related sibling tools.

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 implies the tool is for removing OAuth2 links and imposes a superuser precondition, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools such as list_external_auths, or when unlink should not be used.

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

Deploy Server