avanan_delete_msp_user
Delete an MSP user from your system by specifying their unique user ID.
Instructions
Delete an MSP user by ID.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | MSP user ID. |
Delete an MSP user from your system by specifying their unique user ID.
Delete an MSP user by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | MSP user ID. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete', implying destructiveness, but does not mention if the operation is reversible, requires special permissions, or has cascading effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
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 sentence, which is concise. However, it omits important details such as behavioral consequences, which could improve structure. It is not verbose, but could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, confirmation messages, or side effects. For a delete operation, the agent needs to know if the user is permanently removed or if there are any constraints.
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% with the parameter 'user_id' described as 'MSP user ID', and the description adds no additional meaning. The description does not clarify format or source of the ID, but since schema already covers it, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states 'Delete an MSP user by ID', specifying the action (delete), the resource (MSP user), and the identifier (by ID). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, update, or list operations.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. It does not mention conditions like whether the user must have no active licenses or that deletion is irreversible, leaving the agent without context to avoid misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/wyre-technology/avanan-legacy-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server