solidtime-mcp

solidtime_user_delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete a Solidtime user by UUID; omit confirmation for a dry-run preview before executing the irreversible action.

Instructions

Delete a user. DELETE /api/v1/users/{user}. Irreversible. Omit confirm for a dry-run.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "user_id": "<user_id>"
    },
    "name": "solidtime_user_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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 UUID to delete. Irreversible.
`password`	No	Account password when the API requires it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile exists; the description adds the non-obvious dry-run mechanism and reinforces irreversibility. It does not mention that a password may be required in some cases or what the response contains, leaving minor behavioral gaps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, then the irreversible warning, then the dry-run hint. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 destructive single-record delete with no output schema, the description covers purpose, endpoint, and the safety-relevant dry-run path. The unmentioned password requirement is documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents confirm's dry-run behavior and the password parameter, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning. The 'omit confirm for a dry-run' line largely restates what the schema already says.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a user') and ties it to the concrete endpoint DELETE /api/v1/users/{user}, so an agent can distinguish it from update operations. It doesn't explicitly contrast with closely related siblings like solidtime_member_remove or solidtime_user_update, which is the only gap.

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?

Gives actionable usage context: the operation is irreversible and omitting confirm produces a dry-run, which is a real workflow instruction. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., disabling vs deleting a user, or member removal vs user deletion).

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

Deploy Server