Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

CheckMyApp

by io.github.sorokinvj
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Remove a scenario

remove_scenario
Destructive

Remove a scenario the team wrote; its past checks stay. One an agent handed over to be checked every day (create_app, update_app or add_scenario) only a person stops watching, on the app's Journeys tab. A scenario the check found is replaced, not removed.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "scenario_id": "<scenario_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_scenario"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
teamNoAct in another of your teams, by its name or id (whoami lists them). Omitted: the key's own team
scenario_idYesA team scenario's id; it is retired, its history kept

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond destructiveHint=true, it discloses that past checks remain after removal, that daily-watch scenarios must be stopped by a person through the Journeys tab, and that check-found scenarios are replaced rather than removed. These are material behavioral distinctions an agent would not get from the annotations alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loads the purpose, with no filler. However, the middle sentence is syntactically awkward ('One an agent handed over... only a person stops watching'), which slightly reduces readability, even though every sentence contributes decision-relevant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, history preservation, and the key exceptions. It does not explain the success response or not-found behavior, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, but an agent has enough information to choose and invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the history-preservation meaning of scenario_id and the team-selection behavior of team. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

The first clause names the action and resource precisely: 'Remove a scenario,' scoped to scenarios 'the team wrote.' The following sentences distinguish it from two nearby cases: agent-handed daily-check scenarios handled on the Journeys tab, and check-found scenarios that are replaced rather than removed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear use condition ('the team wrote') and explicit exclusions: daily-watch scenarios stopped only by a person on the Journeys tab, and check-found scenarios that are replaced rather than removed. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as update_scenario or list_scenarios, but the main when-not guidance is strong.

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

All CheckMyApp 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