Remove an alert rule by its ID, or keep the rule and stop it from firing by enabling the disable-only option.
Delete an alert rule by id, or disable it instead with disable_only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Rule id from alert_list | |
| disable_only | No | Keep the rule but stop it firing. Default false. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, directly contradicting a delete operation. The description itself gives no safety or side-effect context, making behavior ambiguous. This is an annotation contradiction.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and no filler. 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 simple two-parameter tool, the schema coverage and description cover the core call correctly. However, the contradiction with annotations and the lack of any note about success/failure response leave an agent slightly under-informed.
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 input schema already covers both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds the semantic that disable_only is an alternative to deletion ('instead'), which clarifies the boolean's purpose beyond the schema's wording.
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 identifies the exact action (delete) and resource (alert rule by id), and even presents the disable alternative. This clearly differentiates it from create/list/check siblings despite not naming them.
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 phrase 'or disable it instead' gives a concrete choice between deleting and preserving-with-disable, which is actionable. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to delete, but the intended use is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.