PocketBase MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool deletes a user and is admin-only, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to associated data (e.g., records, files), any confirmation steps, error messages for invalid IDs, or rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is extremely concise—a single phrase with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a user') and includes a crucial constraint ('admin only') efficiently. Every part earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive admin operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses details on behavioral outcomes, error handling, and return values. For a high-stakes tool like user deletion, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an AI agent.

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 100%, with the parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'User ID to delete'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this—it doesn't specify ID format, validation rules, or examples. Since the schema already fully describes the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'pb_admin_update_user' by specifying deletion rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the admin-only nature distinguishes it from non-admin user management tools, which slightly reduces specificity.

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 description includes 'admin only' which provides some context about permissions, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pb_admin_update_user' for deactivation or 'pb_collections_delete' for other resources. No explicit guidance on prerequisites, error conditions, or when-not-to-use scenarios is provided.

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