Permanently delete a specific uptime monitor and its entire history. Use this to stop monitoring a target and remove it from your workspace.
Permanently delete a monitor and its history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource id (uuid) | |
| project | No | Project id (from list_workspaces). Omit to use the default project of the workspace. | |
| workspace | No | Workspace id (from list_workspaces). Omit to use the default one. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that the operation is permanent and that the monitor's history is destroyed along with it, which the annotations do not convey.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the consequential word 'Permanently' appears first so the risk is seen immediately.
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?
For a one-sentence destructive tool there is no output schema to explain, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description covers the irreversible data loss. Missing details like required permissions or not-found behavior are minor for this shape.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (id, project, workspace) are already documented in the schema, including the fallback behavior for omitting project/workspace. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (delete) plus resource (monitor) and scope (and its history), which an agent can distinguish from pause_monitor/resume_monitor. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with non-permanent disable options, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as pause_monitor for a reversible disable. The agent is left to infer that deletion is the appropriate action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.