Delete a standing watch rule by rule ID to stop alerts tied to that rule. Supply the rule_id to remove it from your self-hosted Velocity instance.
Delete a standing watch rule by id (DELETE /api/alerts/rules/{rule_id}).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a destructive write operation. It never states that deletion is permanent/irreversible, whether the call is idempotent, or what happens when the id is unknown; only the raw HTTP endpoint is offered as context.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the endpoint parenthetical second. No filler, no redundancy.
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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the operation itself is simple. What remains missing is the destructive/irreversible nature and how to source the rule id, which matters for a tool with no annotations.
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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is a bare string, so the description must compensate. "by id" and the path template {rule_id} confirm it is the rule identifier, but nothing says where to obtain that id, what format it takes, or how an invalid id is handled.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a standing watch rule") plus the identifier needed, which cleanly separates it from create_watch_rule and list_watch_rules. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the verb alone is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to delete versus when to leave a rule in place, no mention of prerequisites (does the rule need to exist?), and no reference to list_watch_rules for finding the id. The agent must infer all usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.