Skip to main content
Glama

Alerts Delete

alerts_delete
Destructive

Delete one of the user's alerts by id. Soft-delete (pauses it, keeps history) by default; pass hard=true to remove permanently. Returns {ok: true} on success.

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": {
      "alert_id": "<alert_id>"
    },
    "name": "alerts_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hardNoHard-delete vs pause. Default false.
alert_idYesThe alert ID to delete.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations say destructiveHint=true, which alone would suggest every call is irreversible; the description corrects that by disclosing the default is a soft-delete that pauses the alert and keeps history, while hard=true removes it permanently. It also names what is preserved and states the return shape {ok: true}.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and id, then the mode semantics, then the return value. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers the success return, and the annotations plus schema cover the rest of a simple two-parameter tool. It stops short of noting behavior on an unknown or already-deleted alert id, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 both parameters are already documented, but the description adds real meaning to hard by explaining the consequence (pause + keep history vs permanent removal) rather than just 'Hard-delete vs pause.' alert_id gets no extra semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: "Delete one of the user's alerts by id." It further disambiguates the two modes of deletion. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling alerts_edit, which could plausibly be used to pause an alert instead.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The default-vs-hard guidance is a usage decision, but it is framed as a parameter explanation rather than a when-to-use rule. Nothing tells the agent when to reach for this tool versus alerts_edit (e.g., 'use alerts_edit to pause instead of soft-deleting').

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.