delete_monitorPermanently delete a monitor and all its stored results. This action cannot be undone. Requires a free watch key or paid API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| monitor_id | Yes | The monitor ID to delete. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| deleted | Yes | ||
| monitor_id | Yes | ||
| results_deleted | Yes | Number of result records also deleted. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses exactly what gets destroyed: the monitor and all its stored results. It also explicitly warns that the action cannot be undone and states the required credentials, adding meaningful behavioral context over the structured annotations. There is no contradiction with the idempotentHint annotation; the description simply does not address repeated-call behavior.
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 compact sentences with no fluff. The core action and scope are front-loaded, followed by the critical irreversibility warning and authentication requirement. Every sentence contributes information an agent needs before calling the tool.
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?
The tool is simple: one required parameter fully documented in the schema, destructive and idempotent behavior covered by annotations, and the description adds auth requirements and irreversible consequences. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's job. Nothing essential 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?
The sole parameter monitor_id is already fully described in the schema as 'The monitor ID to delete.' With schema description coverage at 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no new semantic information about the parameter, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('delete'), a specific resource ('a monitor'), and the full scope ('and all its stored results'). It also clarifies permanence ('cannot be undone'), which distinguishes this from any non-destructive monitor tool. The purpose is unambiguous and clearly differentiated from siblings like create_monitor or list_monitors.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when a monitor and its results should be permanently removed. It provides important usage context by warning about irreversibility and stating the authentication prerequisite ('Requires a free watch key or paid API key'). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tool competes for this deletion action.
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 have clearly distinct purposes, but there are several lightly overlapping pairs (check_endpoint/preflight_endpoint, check_pricing/compare_pricing_pages, estimate_market/compare_competitors, test_hypothesis/verify_claim). The detailed descriptions and explicit 'do not use for' notes mitigate confusion, so misselection is unlikely.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_endpoint, create_monitor, verify_claim). Even compound verbs like preflight_endpoint and run_monitor_now adhere to the same structure, making the naming fully predictable.
19 tools is slightly heavy but reasonable for the broad scope covering endpoint checks, pricing, compliance, package research, claim verification, and monitor lifecycle. Each tool has a distinct role, though the count edges close to the 'heavy' range.
Core workflows are well-covered: create/list/delete/get/run/preview monitors, single and comparative pricing checks, endpoint and security verification, and claim testing. Minor gaps exist, such as no update_monitor tool or a way to explicitly verify a claim without pre-supplied evidence URLs, but these are workable.