Remove a role grant from a user by grant ID. Requires confirm: true; omit to preview the action.
Remove a role grant (authorization) from a user by grant ID. Requires confirm: true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes | The user ID | |
| confirm | No | Must be true to execute. Omit to preview the action. | |
| grantId | Yes | The grant / authorization ID to remove |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / properties / grantId / descriptionPrevious value: -"The grant ID to remove"New value: +"The grant / authorization ID to remove"v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this with the confirm gate and the preview-if-omitted behavior, but that same detail is already in the schema, so it adds limited new context (no permission requirements, no effect on other grants).
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?
Two sentences, zero waste, with the action stated first and the confirm requirement front-loaded as the second sentence.
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 mutation whose safety hints are already in annotations, and with no output schema to explain, the description plus schema give the agent enough to call it correctly. Missing only privilege/scope context, which keeps it from a 5.
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%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the confirm/preview semantics. The description only restates the grant-ID targeting, adding nothing the schema does not already say — baseline 3.
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 ('Remove a role grant (authorization) from a user by grant ID'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like zitadel_create_user_grant and zitadel_list_user_grants without needing to name them.
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?
Gives one hard prerequisite ('Requires confirm: true'), which is genuinely useful, but offers no when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance and no exclusions — e.g. it never distinguishes itself from revoke_org_manager or offboard_user, which also remove access.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.