Remove one suppression rule from the caller's account. Call list_suppression_rules first to read the rule ids and their coverage, then call this with the id you want gone. The issues it was hiding return to the default list on the next read and are announced again from their next event onwards; their stored status and history are untouched.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The rule id (from list_suppression_rules) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the effect: hidden issues return to the default list on next read, are announced again from their next event, and their stored status/history are untouched. This is rich, precise post-condition detail.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the prerequisite and the post-condition. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 single-parameter delete with no annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers prerequisites, post-conditions, and side effects. 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.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaning by clarifying the id comes from list_suppression_rules. The behavioral note about what happens to the issues the rule was hiding adds context tied to the rule's purpose.
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?
States a specific verb (Remove) and resource (suppression rule), scoped to the caller's account. Clearly distinguished from siblings like delete_ignore_rule, delete_alert_rule, and delete_dashboard by naming the exact resource type.
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?
Explicitly instructs to call list_suppression_rules first to obtain rule ids, then call this with the id to remove. This is a clear when-to-use sequence with the required prerequisite stated.
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.