equivault-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_alert

Remove an alert rule from the EquiVault MCP server to stop receiving notifications for specific equity research criteria.

Instructions

Delete an alert rule. This cannot be undone. Requires Advisor tier.

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": {
      "alert_id": "<alert_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_alert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`alert_id`	Yes	Alert rule ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Apr 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates critical behavioral traits: the destructive nature ('This cannot be undone') and authorization requirements ('Requires Advisor tier'), which are essential for safe tool invocation.

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 extremely efficient with three short sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the action, warning about irreversibility, and specifying authorization requirements. There's zero wasted language and it's perfectly front-loaded.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering critical aspects: purpose, irreversibility, and authorization. However, it doesn't mention what happens after deletion (confirmation, error handling) or potential side effects, leaving minor gaps.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'alert_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without adding extra value.

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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete') and resource ('an alert rule'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_alert' and 'update_alert'. It provides a complete verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description explicitly states 'Requires Advisor tier', providing clear context about prerequisites. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_alert' or provide explicit exclusions, which prevents a perfect score.

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