Skip to main content
Glama
ohneben

LearnWorlds MCP

by ohneben
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

unsuspend_user

Idempotent

Restore a suspended user's access in LearnWorlds by providing their user ID or email. This action updates the live school record and returns the unsuspended user resource.

Instructions

🟡 WRITE · updates data · PUT /v2/users/{id}/unsuspend

Unsuspends a user. The endpoint response is the unsuspended User resource.

Behavior: replaces the fields you send on an existing record in the live school. Idempotent: repeating it leaves the same state. 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. Returns: HTTP <status> followed by the LearnWorlds JSON response body. 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 when the user asked to change an existing record. Read it first so you overwrite just the fields you mean to; use the create tool if it does not exist yet. Related Users tools: enroll_user_product, get_courses_enrollments_user, get_products_user, get_seat_offerings_that_user_is_member, get_user.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesUser id or email (encoded string)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: server-side auth injection, the 30-per-10s throttle with 429/5xx retry, and a precise error taxonomy (401/403/404/422). However, the boilerplate clause 'replaces the fields you send on an existing record' is inaccurate for a tool whose only parameter is id — there are no user-supplied fields to replace — which slightly undermines the disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well structured with labeled sections (Behavior, Returns, Use when) and a front-loaded WRITE/PUT marker that orients the agent immediately. The only wasteful content is the inapplicable 'replaces the fields you send' sentence; otherwise each section earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it specifies return format, error semantics, rate limiting, auth requirements, and related tools. The notable gaps are not naming suspend_user as the inverse operation and the slightly misleading field-replacement clause.

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%, with the id parameter already documented as 'User id or email (encoded string).' The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with 'Unsuspends a user' — a specific verb and resource, reinforced by the title annotation 'Unsuspend a user' and the HTTP path PUT /v2/users/{id}/unsuspend. It is immediately distinguishable from inverse and adjacent siblings like suspend_user and update_user.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The 'Use when' section states to invoke it only when the user asked to change an existing record, advises reading the record first, and routes to the create tool if the record does not exist. It lists related Users tools for navigation, though it never explicitly contrasts with suspend_user or update_user, leaving some exclusion logic implicit.

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