woow_emqx_mcp_server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete EMQX Trace

emqx_delete_trace

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a trace and its captured log. If the trace is still running, buffered events are lost, so retrieve the log first or wait for natural expiry.

Instructions

[DESTRUCTIVE] Delete a trace and its captured log.

If the trace is still running, events buffered in memory are lost. Call emqx_get_trace_log first, or wait for it to expire naturally.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "emqx_delete_trace"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Trace name to delete.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

While annotations declare destructiveHint and readOnlyHint, the description adds crucial context that the captured log is deleted and that running traces lose buffered memory events. This goes beyond the structured annotations and alerts the agent to irreversible side effects.

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?

Extremely concise: two short sentences deliver the purpose, a warning, and a procedural tip. The [DESTRUCTIVE] label is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 delete operation with an output schema, the description covers the main action, the risk scenario, and a recommended fallback. This is complete and sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description ('Trace name to delete'). The tool description does not add further parameter details, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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?

The description clearly states 'Delete a trace and its captured log' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like emqx_get_trace_log, emqx_create_trace, and emqx_list_traces by focusing on deletion.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: if the trace is still running, buffered events are lost, and recommends calling emqx_get_trace_log first or waiting for natural expiry. This names the alternative tool and gives a clear precondition, exceeding basic usage indications.

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