aivy-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_alert

Retires an alert rule for a monitored solar or battery system while preserving past firings in the inbox; confirm with the user before applying.

Instructions

Retire an alert rule (past firings stay in the inbox). Confirm with the user first.

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": {
      "site_id": "<site_id>",
      "rule_id": "<rule_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_alert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rule_id`	Yes
`site_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations the description carries the whole burden, and it does disclose two real behaviors: past firings remain in the inbox, and user confirmation is required. It leaves out whether the deletion is irreversible, whether it is idempotent for an unknown rule_id, and what permissions are needed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoped by a parenthetical consequence. Nothing is padding.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the destructive-effect summary is present. For a tool with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, however, the missing parameter meaning and irreversibility semantics leave a gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but neither rule_id nor site_id is mentioned. The agent must infer that rule_id identifies the alert and site_id scopes it, with no help on format or relationship.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Retire an alert rule') and clarifies the effect on history, which separates it from create_alert, list_alerts and get_alert_events. It never names those siblings, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It states one precondition ('Confirm with the user first'), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It does not say when not to use it, what the alternative to retiring a rule is, or what happens if the rule is currently enabled.

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