delete_monitorDelete one of your standing watches, so it stops firing. Does not touch anything it already started. Requires authentication and the monitors:write scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| monitor_id | Yes | The monitor's id, from create_monitor or list_monitors. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clearly describes a destructive operation ('Delete one of your standing watches'), but the annotations set destructiveHint=false, which contradicts the described behavior. Per the rubric, this is an annotation contradiction, so the score is 1.
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?
Three short sentences front-load the key action and add only essential clarifications: the effect, the non-effect, and the required scope. No filler or redundancy.
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 one-parameter delete tool with an output schema, the description covers the effect, what it does not affect, and authentication requirements. The only notable gap is the annotation contradiction, which is already penalized in behavioral transparency.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, including a clear description of monitor_id. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('standing watches'), and clarifies the effect ('so it stops firing'), which distinguishes it from create_monitor/list_monitors and other delete_* siblings. The purpose is immediately clear.
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?
The description gives clear context for when to use the tool ('so it stops firing') and explicitly states a non-effect ('Does not touch anything it already started'). However, it does not name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action, with detailed descriptions that clearly separate overlapping domains (e.g., consulting vs. marketing vs. outreach). Even within the same domain, tools like 'create_consulting_deliverable' and 'create_consulting_document_revision' are unambiguous due to their specific nouns.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., 'create_invoice', 'get_deal', 'list_agents'). The few exceptions like 'locus_determine_from_scores' still adhere to the verb_noun structure and do not break the pattern.
With 124 tools, the server is massively over-scoped for typical MCP use. The tool count far exceeds the '50+ extreme mismatch' threshold, making it nearly impossible for an agent to efficiently navigate or select the right tool without extensive context. Even a large platform should consolidate or expose fewer tools.
The tool surface covers CRUD and lifecycle operations across at least 10 domains (sales, consulting, marketing, outreach, accounting, workflows, ticketing, API keys, feedback, platform metrics). Each domain appears to have no obvious gaps—e.g., invoicing includes create, update, send, mark paid, void; ticketing includes create, update, archive, dependencies, batch, scenarios, validation.