delete_dynamic_endpointPermanently delete a dynamic endpoint (the server purges its public edge URL first). Unlike unpublish, this removes the resource entirely — it no longer appears in list_dynamic_endpoints. Cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint_id | Yes | the endpoint id to delete |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| deleted | Yes |
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?
The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by stating the action is irreversible, that the server purges the public edge URL first, and that the resource no longer appears in list_dynamic_endpoints. This gives the agent crucial behavioral context about side effects and permanence.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a parenthetical behavioral note and a clear differentiation from the sibling. Every sentence adds value with no redundant filler.
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 has a single parameter, a destructive semantic clearly disclosed, an output schema, and a clear comparison to the relevant alternative. Nothing an agent needs to correctly select and invoke this tool 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter endpoint_id, with the schema already describing it as 'the endpoint id to delete'. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, 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 uses the specific verb 'Permanently delete' with the resource 'dynamic endpoint', and explicitly contrasts with 'unpublish' by stating this removes the resource entirely. This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like unpublish_dynamic_endpoint.
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 explicitly names the alternative ('Unlike unpublish') and explains the key difference: unpublish does not remove the resource, while this tool does. An agent can confidently decide between delete_dynamic_endpoint and unpublish_dynamic_endpoint based on this guidance.
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.
Every resource family follows the same verb+noun pattern and each tool name uniquely identifies a resource-action pair (create_app vs create_app_version vs update_app vs publish_app). Closest overlaps like analyze_resource vs get_resource_graph and patch_datafile vs update_datafile are explicitly differentiated by their descriptions, so misselection risk is low despite the scale.
Names are almost uniformly verb_noun snake_case with a consistent lifecycle vocabulary: create/get/update/delete/list/publish/unpublish/version. Minor outliers like whoami and run_schedule_now are idiomatic and do not break the predictability of the set.
At 93 tools this far exceeds the calibration's 50+ extreme-mismatch case. The count is inflated by repeating create/get/update/delete/version/publish/unpublish across ten resource families; even though each family is systematic, the combined surface is very hard for an agent to navigate and keep in context.
Core CRUD/publish/version lifecycles are present for apps, workflows, endpoints, schedules, schemas, datafiles, and api templates, and dependency analysis is well covered. However, secret creation/updating, asset upload, custom-domain deletion, and version-range enumeration for several resource types are absent or left to the external dashboard, so agents hit a few manual dead ends.