Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Manifold MCP

by com.manifoldmcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Delete a monitor

monitoring_delete_monitor
DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a monitor with its history and changes. It cannot be undone.

Use when: the user asks to stop and remove a monitor, not just pause it. Not for: stopping it for a while, use monitoring_update_monitor with status paused, which keeps the history. Returns: Record. monitor_id, deleted. Cost: 0 credits. Example: {"monitor_id": "trk_01J..."}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
monitor_idYesFrom monitoring_get_monitors.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
metaYes
errorNo
hintsYes
deletedNo
monitor_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / credits_remaining / description
      Previous value: -"The workspace's credits left after this call. null when the call did not check the balance (free tools, cache hits, dry runs, tasks) or the balance has no limit."New value: +"The workspace's credits left after this call. null when the call did not check the balance (free tools, cache hits, dry runs, tasks) or the balance has no limit. Leaves out credits held for calls still running, so it can dip during parallel calls and come back; credits_charged is what this call cost."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / feedback_request
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Once per workspace: after the task, ask the user once for feedback and send any answer with submit_feedback.",
+  "properties": {
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "message"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by specifying what is actually destroyed (history and changes) and stating the action is irreversible, plus a cost note of 0 credits. The "Returns" line duplicates the output schema, which slightly caps this score.

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?

Tightly labeled sections (Use when / Not for / Returns / Cost / Example) with the destructive scope front-loaded in the first two sentences. No filler; every line carries information an agent needs.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers scope, exclusions, alternative, cost, and an example call. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents its source (monitoring_get_monitors). The description only reinforces this with an example value ("trk_01J..."), which gives a useful format hint but little 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Deletes a monitor") and immediately scopes it: the history and changes go with it and the action is irreversible. That distinguishes it cleanly from monitoring_update_monitor and the other monitoring siblings.

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?

Explicit "Use when" (stop and remove, not just pause) and explicit "Not for" that names the alternative tool and the exact parameter value to use instead (monitoring_update_monitor with status paused). Nothing is left to inference.

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

All Manifold MCP 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