Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
saas-alerts-mcp

saas-alerts-mcp

by am3cramirez
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

saas_alerts_reports_delete_scheduled

Destructive

Permanently delete a scheduled report by ID. This destructive action cannot be undone, so confirm with the user before invoking.

Instructions

⚠ DESTRUCTIVE — IRREVERSIBLE. Permanently delete a scheduled report. This action cannot be undone. Confirm with the user before invoking.

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": {
      "report_id": "<report_id>"
    },
    "name": "saas_alerts_reports_delete_scheduled"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
report_idYesScheduled report ID to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true) by explicitly stating the action is irreversible and cannot be undone, and it mandates user confirmation. This adds valuable behavioral context not captured in the structured metadata.

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?

The description is extremely concise, with a prominent warning front-loaded (⚠ DESTRUCTIVE — IRREVERSIBLE) and only two sentences total. Every word earns its place, and it is immediately scannable.

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 simple one-parameter delete operation with annotations already flagging destructiveness, the description is fully sufficient. It does not need to explain return values or further details, as the input schema and annotations cover the rest.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the only parameter (report_id: 'Scheduled report ID to delete'), covering 100% of parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Permanently delete a scheduled report') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_scheduled, get_scheduled, and list_scheduled by explicitly naming the delete operation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides a clear usage instruction: 'Confirm with the user before invoking.' While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, the destructive nature and the confirmation requirement give sufficient context for when to use this tool.

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