medusa-mcp

Delete customer group

delete_customer_group

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a customer group in Medusa without removing its customers. Price lists and promotions targeting that group stop applying; confirm before deleting.

Instructions

DELETES a customer group (the customers stay). Price lists and promotions targeting it stop applying. Confirm with the user first.

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": {
      "group_id": "<group_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_customer_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`group_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.3.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the cascade effects (price lists and promotions targeting the group stop applying) and explicitly states the non-obvious side effect that member customers are preserved.

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 clauses, each load-bearing: the action, the non-destructive side effect, and the cascade consequence, with the confirmation rule last. No filler.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers action, side effects, and the required user-confirmation step. The only gap is that the group_id parameter is left entirely undocumented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and group_id carries no format, ID-prefix, or sourcing guidance in either the schema or the description. With one undocumented parameter and a low coverage signal, the description should have compensated and does not.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('DELETES a customer group') and immediately clarifies scope with '(the customers stay)', which separates it from sibling group tools like save_customer_group and list_customer_groups.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives one actionable usage rule — 'Confirm with the user first' — which is meaningful for a destructive tool, but never says when deletion is preferred over alternatives (e.g., leaving the group, or using save_customer_group to modify it) or what prerequisites exist.

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