Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
addy-mcp

addy-mcp

by Former-Stranger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

delete_rule

Destructive

Deletes an existing addy.io rule by its UUID, removing it from your account's rule set so it no longer applies.

Instructions

Delete a rule.

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": {
      "rule_id": "<rule_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rule_idYesThe id (UUID) of the item

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description is not required to restate it. But the description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether deletion is permanent, whether it affects aliases or domains that reference the rule, or whether any confirmation or permission is required for an irreversible operation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single sentence contains no filler and is front-loaded, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely concise. Nothing is wasted, yet almost nothing is conveyed.

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 an irreversible mutation tool with no output schema, the description should explain what happens on success and any cascading effects on related objects. Given the tool's destructive nature and its place among many sibling delete operations, 'Delete a rule.' is too thin to let an agent act with confidence.

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?

Only one parameter (rule_id) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema stating it is the UUID of the item. The description adds no additional meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a specific verb (delete) and resource (rule), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it merely restates the tool name delete_rule and offers no differentiation from the many sibling delete_* tools (delete_alias, delete_domain, delete_label), leaving the agent to infer scope from the name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as update_rule or set_rule_active, and no prerequisites are mentioned. The agent must infer that this is the correct call whenever removal of a rule is desired.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools