Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenUptime

OpenUptime

by becoolme
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

delete_monitor

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete a monitor and its check history when it is no longer needed; this action cannot be undone, so pause the monitor instead if you may need it again.

Instructions

Permanently remove a monitor and its check history; returns an empty success response. Use pause_monitor instead when you may need it again. Requires workspace owner/admin access in addition to write scope. The monitor cannot be recovered through this tool; deletion does not create an incident-resolution update.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_monitor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesResource UUID returned by the matching list tool; not its name, incident number or status-page slug.
projectNoProject id (from list_workspaces). Omit to use the default project of the workspace.
workspaceNoWorkspace id (from list_workspaces). Omit to use the default one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"Resource id (uuid)"New value: +"Resource UUID returned by the matching list tool; not its name, incident number or status-page slug."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that check history is destroyed, that the resource is unrecoverable through this tool, that the response is an empty success, and that deletion does not create an incident-resolution update. That is exactly the kind of irreversible-consequence and side-effect detail an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste: the destructive action and its scope are front-loaded, the safer alternative follows, and prerequisites/recovery limits close it out. Every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explicitly states the return is an empty success response, so the agent knows not to expect a payload. Combined with the disclosed permissions, irreversibility, and cascade scope, nothing needed to invoke this destructive tool correctly is missing.

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%, and each parameter already carries a description (UUID from the list tool, project/workspace defaults), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as which identifier form to prefer or what happens if project and workspace conflict, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 remove a monitor') plus the scope of destruction ('and its check history') and the return shape ('empty success response'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like pause_monitor, update_monitor, or get_monitor without opening any schema.

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 names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Use pause_monitor instead when you may need it again.' It also states the access prerequisite (workspace owner/admin in addition to write scope), so an agent knows both when to pick this tool and whether it can succeed.

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