Remove a powerpack from Datadog to manage monitoring configurations and reduce clutter in your dashboard.
Delete a powerpack.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "delete_powerpack"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has confirmation steps, or what happens to associated data. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context about behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, permissions), expected outcomes, or error conditions. The agent must infer too much from the verb 'delete' alone.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies deletion targets a specific powerpack without specifying how (likely via context or URL). This meets expectations for a zero-parameter tool.
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 'Delete a powerpack' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (powerpack), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_monitor' or 'delete_slo' beyond the resource name, and it doesn't specify what a powerpack is or what deletion entails.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing powerpack), consequences of deletion, or when deletion might be inappropriate compared to other operations like 'update_powerpack'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.