delete_autodmPermanently deletes an AutoDM monitor along with its stats and logs; this action cannot be undone. Use it to remove monitors you no longer need.
Permanently delete an AutoDM monitor with its stats and logs. Cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| monitor_id | Yes | AutoDM monitor ID (from list_autodms or start_autodm). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.17.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is to add specificity — and it does, by naming what is destroyed (the monitor plus its stats and logs) and stating irreversibility. It does not cover auth requirements or any cascade beyond stats/logs, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
Two sentences, both front-loaded with the highest-stakes information (permanence and destruction scope) first. No filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. What's missing is routing guidance toward the reversible siblings for a destructive tool, which matters given how many autodm_* siblings exist.
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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents monitor_id including its provenance (list_autodms, start_autodm). The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline here.
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?
Specific verb ('Permanently delete') plus resource ('an AutoDM monitor') with scope qualifier ('with its stats and logs'). It's clearly distinct from sibling management tools like pause_autodm or stop_autodm, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with 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 'Permanently... Cannot be undone' framing implies caution and thus when to prefer a non-destructive alternative, but no alternative is named. An agent must infer that stop_autodm or pause_autodm exist for reversible cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.