alertas_eliminarElimina una alerta tuya de forma permanente. Requiere cuenta verificada (scope alertas:write).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| cta | No | ||
| disclosure | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, but the description adds value with 'de forma permanente' (irreversibility) and the specific auth scope 'alertas:write'. These details go beyond what the annotations provide.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The action and permanence are front-loaded, and the auth requirement is stated separately and efficiently.
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 operation, the annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the output schema covers return values. The description covers purpose, ownership, permanence, and auth. The only real gap is not explicitly stating that the id parameter is the identifier of the alert to delete.
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 schema only defines id as a string of 1-64 characters, and the description does not explain what the id parameter refers to or where to obtain it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it leaves id semantics entirely to inference from the tool name and property name.
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 states a specific action ('Elimina'), the target resource ('una alerta tuya'), and the permanent nature of the operation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like alertas_editar, alertas_activar, or alertas_listar.
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 context is clear: use this tool to permanently delete one of the user's own alerts, and the auth requirement is explicitly stated. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the intended use is evident from the sibling tool set.
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.
Most tools are grouped into recognizable clusters (alertas, checkout, favoritos, notas), but several retrieval/report tools overlap: `fetch` and `subasta` both expose an auction record, and `analisis_subasta` and `informe` both provide analysis. The descriptions give enough distinguishing detail, but an agent must read closely to avoid misselection.
Naming mixes Spanish and English, and mixes conventions: `alertas_crear` and `buscar_subastas` are Spanish compound names, `create_checkout`/`cancel_checkout` are English verb_noun, while `fetch`, `search`, `subasta` and `informe` are bare words. There is internal consistency within clusters, but no coherent pattern across the full toolset.
32 tools is a large, heavy surface for one MCP server, exceeding the 25+ threshold where consolidation is usually needed. Many tools earn their place given the broad platform, but the multiple search/retrieval variants and five checkout lifecycle tools could be streamlined.
The server covers the core domain thoroughly: auction search/retrieval, viability reports, alerts, favorites, registry notes, market statistics, plans/account, and UCP checkout all have lifecycle coverage. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit report-purchase history and some payment steps being delegated to a browser, but agents can complete most workflows.