Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Broker Analysis MCP

Broker Analysis MCP

by chetto1983
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

delete_hook

DestructiveIdempotent

Removes a saved hook by its ID, allowing analysts to clear outdated or unwanted hook configurations from the Broker Analysis MCP server.

Instructions

Delete a saved hook by id.

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": {
      "hook_id": "<hook_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_hook"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hook_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive but idempotent write. The description adds only "saved" and "by id" and does not explain consequences such as whether deletion is permanent, what happens with an invalid id, or whether confirmation is required.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the operation and the required identifier.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple one-parameter deletion tool whose annotations already cover the destructive and idempotent behavior. However, the description does not explain the hook_id source, expected return behavior, or deletion consequences, leaving some gaps for an agent invoking it correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented hook_id parameter. It says only "by id," without indicating where the id comes from, its format, or how to obtain it from list_hooks. This adds marginal meaning beyond the schema's type declaration.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Delete a saved hook by id." This clearly identifies the operation as deleting a stored hook. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like create_hook or list_hooks, but the action is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_hooks or run_hooks. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions for use beyond the implied action of deletion.

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