Remove SLOs from Datadog monitoring to declutter your dashboard and maintain accurate performance tracking.
Delete SLO
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": "slos_delete"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete SLO' implies a destructive operation, but it doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting related monitors or alerts), or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 extremely concise ('Delete SLO') with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential operation.
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?
Given this is a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse description, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, consequences, or error handling. The context signals show 0 parameters, but the description doesn't explain how the SLO to delete is specified (e.g., via prior context or tool chaining).
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 lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, though it could mention that SLO identification might be handled elsewhere (e.g., via context or prior steps). Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero parameters.
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 SLO' states the verb (delete) and resource (SLO), making the basic purpose clear. However, it lacks specificity about what SLO means (Service Level Objective) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_slo' which appears to be a duplicate. It's vague about scope and mechanism.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes 'delete_slo' (apparently a duplicate) and 'can_delete_slos' (a permission check), but the description doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or when deletion is appropriate versus updating or archiving.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.