Skip to main content
Glama

Sliq

by com.getsliq
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Remove Trigger

remove_trigger

Removing a flow node's on_enter enactment un-arms that node — prospects entering it no longer enact until you re-arm it with add_trigger. To stop it firing while keeping its authored content, pause it with update_trigger(status='paused') instead. Dict with success, agent_id, and next_run_at. Read the agent's surviving triggers via get_agent_details.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
trigger_idYesID of the trigger to remove (from the agent's trigger list).
on_behalf_ofNoAn agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "An agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / trigger_id / description
      Previous value: -"ID of the trigger to remove (from the task's trigger list)."New value: +"ID of the trigger to remove (from the agent's trigger list)."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description openly describes a delete that discards authored trigger content ('re-arm it with add_trigger'), while annotations declare destructiveHint=false. That is a direct reversal on the destructive axis and could lead an agent to remove a trigger without the confirmation a destructive hint would prompt; the otherwise-good consequence detail cannot offset a contradiction.

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 consequence and the pause alternative are front-loaded in the first paragraph, and the flow-node on_enter warning earns its space. It runs long for a single-id delete, with the returns block adding bulk, but no sentence is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description supplies the return shape (success, agent_id, next_run_at) plus where to verify surviving triggers via get_agent_details. For a single-parameter delete with full schema coverage, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and trigger_id is already documented as coming from the agent's trigger list, so baseline 3 applies. The description only restates 'by id' and says nothing about on_behalf_of, adding no meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Delete one trigger from its agent by id') plus the scope of consequences. It is clearly distinguishable from add_trigger, update_trigger, and delete_agent without opening any 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 names the alternative explicitly: 'To stop it firing while keeping its authored content, pause it with update_trigger(status='paused') instead,' and points to add_trigger for re-arming. The condition that selects removal versus pausing is spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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

All Sliq toolsInspect
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