Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
woodpecker-ci-mcp

woodpecker-ci-mcp

by ni-c
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Delete a user

delete_user
DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a user account from Woodpecker CI. Transfer owned repositories to another user first to prevent pipelines from failing due to a missing token.

Instructions

Removes an account from Woodpecker. Admin only. Repositories the account owned keep running on a token that no longer exists, which shows up later as pipelines that stop starting — chown_repository moves ownership to someone else, and doing that first is the point. Two-step.

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": {
      "login": "<login>",
      "forge_id": "<forge_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
loginYesThe account login as it is spelled in the forge.
forge_idYesWhich forge the login belongs to. Required by the API — a login is only unique per forge. list_users shows it; on a single-forge instance it is 1.
confirm_tokenNoToken from a previous call of this tool.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
truncatedNoPresent only when the answer was shortened to fit the budget.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral consequences: repositories keep running on a nonexistent token and pipelines later stop starting. It also reveals the two-step deletion flow and the admin permission requirement. This does not contradict the destructiveHint and adds valuable operational context beyond what the annotations already convey.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, permission, consequence, prerequisite action, and flow are all packed into two concise sentences. No filler or repetition of schema content. The key instruction about chowning first is front-loaded after the core purpose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive admin tool with an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description covers the essential context: what is removed, who may do it, the prerequisite ownership transfer, and the two-step confirmation flow. The agent has everything needed to decide when and how to invoke it safely.

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 login, forge_id, and confirm_token thoroughly. The description's 'Two-step' hint loosely relates to confirm_token but does not add meaning beyond the schema's 'Token from a previous call of this tool.' Baseline 3 is appropriate since the structured fields carry the parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Removes an account from Woodpecker.' It immediately signals scope with 'Admin only' and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_repository or delete_agent by naming the account-level operation. The title 'Delete a user' is expanded into meaningful, non-tautological language.

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 tells the agent when to call this tool and what to do first: 'chown_repository moves ownership to someone else, and doing that first is the point.' It also names the alternative tool and warns about the consequence of deleting without it, plus the 'Admin only' restriction. This is strong when-to-use guidance with a clear exclusion.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools