Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

forms.forms.watches.delete

Delete a watch on a Google Form to stop its notifications or event monitoring. Provide the form ID and watch ID; the action is irreversible.

Instructions

Delete a watch [HTTP DELETE] — removes the resource; irreversible unless the API documents a trash/undo flow; refused under --readonly safety profiles. Returns the post-delete resource state (or empty) as JSON — request bodies are built from the typed parameters (typed flags win over the params map), or read whole from body_file Siblings over the same resource: create, list, renew.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoExtra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
formIdYes[URL path segment] Required. The ID of the Form.
paramsNoParameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
dry_runNoReturn the request that would be sent, without sending it.
watchIdYes[URL path segment] Required. The ID of the Watch to delete.
body_fileNoRead the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / formId / description
      Previous value: -"Required. The ID of the Form."New value: +"[URL path segment] Required. The ID of the Form."
    • changedInput schema / properties / watchId / description
      Previous value: -"Required. The ID of the Watch to delete."New value: +"[URL path segment] Required. The ID of the Watch to delete."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses irreversibility, the trash/undo caveat, refusal under readonly profiles, and the returned post-delete state. Missing only finer auth/permission details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and irreversibility are front-loaded in the first sentence. The latter half (body-building mechanics) is a bit verbose but not wasteful for this generated toolset.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be re-explained; the description nonetheless states the return shape. Combined with irreversibility and safety notes, it gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly.

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%, so formId/watchId are fully documented in the schema. The description adds general mechanics about typed params winning over `params` and `body_file`, but nothing resource-specific beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (Delete) plus specific resource (a watch on a form) and an explicit sibling set (create, list, renew) that disambiguates it within the watches family. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Names the sibling operations and states irreversibility and the --readonly refusal, giving useful context. It stops short of explicit when-to-use routing (e.g., 'renew to keep notifications vs delete to stop them'), leaving some inference.

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