DC Hub Intelligence

Delete Standing Intent

delete_standing_intent

Destructive

Permanently retire a registered standing intent by intent_id to stop webhook deliveries; cap_ IDs remove a Capacity Source requirement and its alerts. No pause; this cannot be undone.

Instructions

Permanently retire a registered standing intent (webhook watch) by intent_id — deliveries stop and the watch cannot be recovered. A cap_ intent_id retires your own Capacity Source requirement instead, and its alert emails stop. Requires a key (or an OAuth connection for cap_ ids). Get the intent_id from list_standing_intents or from the register response. Answers "stop watching this". Do NOT use to pause temporarily; there is no pause, this removes the watch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`intent_id`	Yes	The intent_id to delete (from list_standing_intents or register)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`quota`	No	Caller quota state (remaining calls, tier) when available.
`_entity`	No	Payload class discriminator (e.g. facility\|market\|iso_grid\|queue_results\|deal\|report\|response) — branch on this before parsing the rest.
`citation`	No	Machine-readable citation: how to attribute DC Hub (dchub.cloud) for this payload. Normally an OBJECT {source, url, license, cite_as, retrieved_at}; a bare string is accepted and carries the attribution line itself.
`provenance`	No	Collection-level provenance block: {source, method, as_of, verification_counts, cite_url_template, license, cite_as}. Quote the verification level when citing.
`_front_door`	No	In-band front-door hint (first workflow-entry tool of a session): call plan_query(intent) first for the ordered multi-step plan.
`_return_loop`	No	Suggested next-session delta call (get_changes since=24h) so you pull only what changed.
`site_evaluation_handoff`	No	Pre-built follow-up calls (analyze_site / get_water_risk args) when the payload carries coordinates — an array of {tool, parameters, why} entries.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.12.10Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that deliveries stop, that the watch cannot be recovered, the cap_ intent_id special case (retires your own Capacity Source requirement and stops its alert emails), and the auth prerequisite (a key, or an OAuth connection for cap_ ids). Annotations only supply destructiveHint/idempotentHint, so this added operational context is genuinely valuable.

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?

Front-loads the destructive outcome in the first clause, then layers prerequisites, id sourcing, and the pause exclusion. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 destructive single-parameter tool it covers effect, irreversibility, auth, id provenance, and the pause misuse case; an output schema exists so return values need not be described. Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning on top by explaining that a cap_-prefixed intent_id routes to a different underlying object and a different auth path, which the schema does not convey.

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 and resource ('Permanently retire a registered standing intent (webhook watch)') with the key selector (intent_id), and it is immediately distinguishable from the sibling list_standing_intents and register_standing_intent. The parenthetical gloss clarifies what a 'standing intent' actually is.

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 gives the when ('Answers "stop watching this"'), the when-not ('Do NOT use to pause temporarily; there is no pause'), and the alternative sources for the required id (list_standing_intents or the register response). Nothing is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server