Skip to main content
Glama

Destroy a channel

destroy_channel
DestructiveIdempotent

Destroy a channel and its routes. This cannot be undone, so confirm with the user first. Without name, it destroys an organization channel found with list_channels; an organization channel that any agent still holds is refused, and the answer names each holder: free each with detach_channel, then destroy it. With name, it destroys a channel that agent owns, such as one create_channel made; a channel the agent only holds from the organization is detached with detach_channel instead. A channel found only in the other scope is refused with the call to make. A channel on an app is destroyed the same way, naming the app in name. Destroying a channel that is already gone changes nothing. The organization's Slack integration removes every agent's Slack app, so for it this gives the step to take and destroys nothing. Requires connecting a Valet account.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoThe owning agent's or app's name, for a channel it owns. Omit to destroy an organization channel.
channelYesRequired. The channel's name, from list_channels.
org_nameNoThe Valet organization the channel belongs to. Omit to use the organization the account joined first.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructive/idempotent) by stating irreversibility, requiring user confirmation, disclosing refusal conditions and the follow-up call, the idempotent-soft-delete behavior, the Slack integration exception, and the Valet-account connection requirement.

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?

Front-loads the core action and irreversibility warning before the branching detail. It is fairly long and dense with repeated scope-switching, but nearly every sentence carries operational instruction rather than filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema, but the description explains what happens on refusal and success ('the answer names each holder', 'changes nothing'), covers the app and Slack special cases, and states the auth prerequisite. 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.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains that omitting name targets an org channel while supplying it targets an agent/app-owned channel, and that org_name defaults to the first-joined org. This scoping semantics is hard to infer from the schema strings alone.

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?

A specific verb and resource ('Destroy a channel and its routes') with immediate scope clarification. It distinguishes itself from detach_channel, list_channels, and create_channel by explaining the ownership/scope branching that separates destroy from detach.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use and when-not: without name destroys an org channel (refused if held by an agent), with name destroys an owned channel, and detachment is the correct alternative when the agent only holds the channel. It also names the confirm-with-user prerequisite and the follow-up call when refused.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources