APVISO MCP Server

delete_schedule

Remove a scan schedule to stop all future scheduled scans for a target in the APVISO security testing platform.

Instructions

Delete a scan schedule. This stops all future scheduled scans for this target.

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": {
      "scheduleId": "<scheduleId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scheduleId`	Yes	The schedule ID to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that deletion stops future scans, which is useful, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether deletion is reversible, error conditions, or confirmation prompts. For a destructive operation, this is insufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and resource, the second clarifies the behavioral impact. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses critical context like side effects, error handling, or return values, leaving gaps in understanding the full behavior and outcomes.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'scheduleId' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the ID refers to a scan schedule, which is minimal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a scan schedule'), and specifies the outcome ('stops all future scheduled scans for this target'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_target' by focusing specifically on schedules rather than targets.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_schedule' or 'delete_target' is provided. The description implies usage for stopping scans but doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing schedule ID or confirming deletion.

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

Deploy Server