LiquidVision — Crypto Derivatives Data

delete_alert

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete one webhook alert subscription. DESTRUCTIVE and not reversible: deliveries to its URL stop at once and its signing secret is discarded (create_alert issues a new one). Only a subscription owned by the caller's API key can be deleted; an id belonging to another key returns {"deleted": false} and changes nothing. id: the number returned by create_alert or list_alerts. Needs a Pro or Bot key (X-API-Key header of the MCP connection, or api_key).

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_alert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Numeric id of the subscription, from list_alerts or create_alert.
`api_key`	No	LiquidVision API key (lv_...). Omit when the key is sent as the X-API-Key header on the connection.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 6, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / api_key / description

Added value: +"LiquidVision API key (lv_...). Omit when the key is sent as the X-API-Key header on the connection."

addedInput schema / properties / id / description

Added value: +"Numeric id of the subscription, from list_alerts or create_alert."

AddedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description goes further: deliveries stop immediately, the signing secret is discarded, the operation is not reversible, and an out-of-scope id yields a no-op with a specific response shape. It stops short of describing the success response or any rate limits, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The destructive warning and irreversibility are front-loaded, which is the right priority for a delete tool. A few clauses duplicate schema text (id provenance, api_key header alternative), costing a bit of tightness but not readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, it covers safety, auth requirements, ownership scoping, and the failure return value. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and what to expect.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning not in the schema: the key must be a Pro or Bot key, and the header may be supplied on the connection instead of as api_key. It also restates id provenance, which the schema already covers.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Permanently delete one webhook alert subscription") and the surrounding text names the sibling tools (create_alert, list_alerts), so an agent can distinguish this from other alert-related operations without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states the precondition for use (only subscriptions owned by the caller's API key), the consequence of a wrong id ({"deleted": false}, nothing changes), and routes creation to create_alert and id lookup to list_alerts. That is explicit when/when-not guidance plus named alternatives.

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

All LiquidVision — Crypto Derivatives Data tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?