Delete a user from LogicMonitor by specifying their user ID. Requires write permission to execute.
Delete a user from LogicMonitor (requires write permission)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | User ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the write-permission requirement, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict any annotation, and the lack of additional behavioral detail is acceptable given the annotation coverage.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and a key requirement, making it highly efficient.
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 one-parameter delete tool with comprehensive annotations, the description and schema cover the essential information. It omits details about side effects or recovery, but the destructiveHint already implies permanence, so nothing critical is missing.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with the single parameter described as 'User ID to delete'. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('user from LogicMonitor'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_user, update_user, and get_users. The action and target are unambiguous.
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 only guideline is 'requires write permission', which is a prerequisite rather than guidance on when to use the tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like deactivating a user via update_user or any exclusions, so the agent must infer usage context from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.