Delete a Grocy user by ID; omit confirm for a dry-run preview. Set confirm to true to execute the removal.
Delete a Grocy user. DELETE /api/users/{userId}. Omit confirm for a dry-run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Set to the boolean true to execute the write. Omit this field for a dry-run preview. false and the string true are rejected. | |
| user_id | Yes | User id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructive/idempotent/openWorld, so the description earns credit for the safety addition: omitting confirm yields a dry-run preview. That is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't warn about unrecoverable data loss or side effects on references.
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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, then the safety mechanism. Nothing wasted.
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 2-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies action, endpoint, and dry-run path. Missing only consequence/irreversibility details, which is a minor gap.
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 coverage is 100% and the confirm field's dry-run semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the confirm behavior without adding format or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 and resource ('Delete a Grocy user') and names the endpoint, clearly distinguishing it from the create/update siblings by operation. No explicit sibling callout, but the destructive action is unmistakable.
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?
Explains the dry-run mechanism but gives no guidance on when to delete versus update/disable a user, nor any preconditions (e.g., cannot delete current user, existing references). Usage is implied rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.