Skip to main content
Glama

Delete Ignore Rule

delete_ignore_rule
DestructiveIdempotent

Delete an ignore rule. Future log entries will no longer be auto-dismissed by this rule.

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": {
      "ignoreRuleId": "<ignoreRuleId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_ignore_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ignoreRuleIdYesThe unique identifier (GUID) of the ignore rule to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by explaining the downstream effect on future log entries, but stays silent on permanence and, critically, whether entries already auto-dismissed by this rule remain dismissed or need restore_entry.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the action is front-loaded and the consequence follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The main omission is what happens to previously dismissed entries and what occurs if the ID does not exist.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage including type, UUID format, and meaning, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no additional semantics about the identifier, which is acceptable at the baseline for full coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an ignore rule') and adds the domain consequence, so it is clearly distinct from create_ignore_rule, list_ignore_rules, and the entry-level siblings like dismiss_entry. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, but the name and phrasing leave little ambiguity.

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?

Usage is only implied through the consequence ('Future log entries will no longer be auto-dismissed'), which hints at when an agent would want this. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of restore_entry as the counterpart for already-dismissed entries, and no prerequisites stated.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources