grant_machines_deleteRevoke a project's machine access by deleting a grant; dependent processes stop while the machine remains available.
Removes the project's access to the machine. Processes that depended on the grant are stopped. The machine itself is retained, and there are no dependency blockers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgID | Yes | ||
| grantID | Yes | ||
| projectID | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not needed for the safety profile. It earns credit by disclosing cascade behavior beyond annotations: dependent processes are stopped, the machine survives, and there are no dependency blockers.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the two consequences an agent most needs. No filler, though it could be tightened slightly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive delete with no output schema, the description covers the key concerns: what is destroyed (access), what survives (the machine), and dependency impact. The remaining gap is the undocumented required identifiers, which is a parameter-level omission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across three required identifiers (grantID, orgID, projectID), and the description never names or explains any of them. With such low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource ('Removes the project's access to the machine') and immediately scopes it against machines_delete by clarifying 'The machine itself is retained'. An agent can distinguish it from the delete-machine sibling without further reading.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The add/list siblings imply this is the removal counterpart, and the note about no dependency blockers hints at when deletion is safe. However, there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance or stated alternatives/preconditions, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.