Delete price alert
delete_alertDelete an alert by ID.
Args:
alert_id: The alert UUID
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alert_id | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
delete_alertDelete an alert by ID.
Args:
alert_id: The alert UUID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alert_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description is consistent. It adds no extra behavioral context beyond 'delete by ID', but the safety profile is already covered.
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 extremely concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. It earns every 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 simple delete operation with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core action. However, it omits potential caveats like irreversibility or ownership requirements, though these are partially implied by the destructiveHint.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by specifying alert_id as a UUID. This adds meaning beyond the bare string type, though it lacks additional details.
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 the tool deletes an alert by ID, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_alert and list_alerts.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as requiring an existing alert_id or confirming permanence. The description only states what it does without context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.