Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
exit1-mcp

exit1-mcp

by Mopra
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Delete check

delete_check
Destructive

Permanently remove an uptime check and stop monitoring it. Use only for explicit deletion, as this action cannot be undone.

Instructions

Permanently delete a check and stop monitoring it. This cannot be undone. Prefer toggle_check unless the user explicitly wants it gone.

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": {
      "check_id": "<check_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
check_idYesThe check ID returned by list_checks or create_check

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so safety is structured data. The description still adds real context beyond that: irreversibility ('This cannot be undone') and the side effect that monitoring stops. It stops short of detailing downstream effects (e.g., alert/history loss), so it's strong but not maximal.

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?

Three short sentences: the operation, the irreversibility warning, then the alternative — front-loaded and waste-free. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a one-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, consequence, irreversibility, and the safer alternative. Nothing material is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single check_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its origin (list_checks or create_check). The description adds nothing beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Permanently delete a check') plus the consequence ('stop monitoring it'), which cleanly separates it from toggle_check. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names the preferred alternative (toggle_check) and the precise condition that overrides it ('unless the user explicitly wants it gone'). This is a textbook when-not/alternative routing instruction.

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