Skip to main content
Glama
ohneben

LearnWorlds MCP

by ohneben
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

remove_user_seat

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a user from a seat and optionally from the seat offering to permanently revoke access. Confirm the removal first—use update or unenroll tools for reversible access changes.

Instructions

🔴 DESTRUCTIVE · deletes · DELETE /v2/seats/{id}/users/{uid}

Remove a user from a seat and optionally from the seat offering.

Behavior: permanently removes the addressed record from the live school — no undo from this server. Auth (admin API token + Lw-Client id) is injected server-side, never by the model; calls are throttled to stay under LearnWorlds' 30-per-10s cap and retried on 429/5xx. Parameters: the whole JSON payload goes in the single body argument, forwarded verbatim (the spec leaves body optional, but this endpoint expects one). Returns: HTTP 200/204, with a body that is usually empty on success. A non-2xx reply surfaces as a tool error with that status and the API error payload — 401 bad/expired token, 403 not permitted, 404 no such record, 422 rejected input. Use when: only after the user confirms the removal. To merely revoke access or deactivate, use the matching 🟡 update or unenroll tool instead. Related Multiple seats tools: add_user_seat_offering, get_users_seat_offering, delete_seat_offering, get_specific_seat_offering, update_seat_offering.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesUnique identifier of the seat offering.
uidYesUser Id or email (encoded string)
bodyNoRequest body (application/json).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: permanent removal with no undo, server-side auth injection, throttling and retry behavior, and detailed success/error response semantics. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 dense but each sentence earns its place: destructive warning, behavior, auth/throttling, parameter handling, return codes, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the most critical signal (destructive) and structured with clear labeled sections.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool does, when to use it, what happens on success and failure, how authentication works, and how parameters are passed. No critical operational detail is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds important parameter guidance beyond the schema: the entire JSON payload goes in the body argument, body is optional per spec but expected by this endpoint, and id/uid are clearly tied to the seat offering and user. It also clarifies the remove_from_seat_offering boolean's effect.

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 opens with 'Remove a user from a seat and optionally from the seat offering,' a specific verb-plus-resource statement that also matches the endpoint and title. It clearly distinguishes this deletion tool from related seat tools like add_user_seat_offering and update_seat_offering by naming them later.

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?

The description states explicitly when to use the tool ('only after the user confirms the removal') and when not to ('To merely revoke access or deactivate, use the matching 🟡 update or unenroll tool instead'). It also lists related seat-offering tools, giving an agent clear routing guidance.

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