Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
kernl

kernl

by fastslack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

kernel_agents_remove_trigger

Remove an event trigger or schedule from an agent to stop automated actions and keep agent behavior current.

Instructions

Remove an event trigger or schedule from an agent

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": {
      "trigger_id": "<trigger_id>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "kernel_agents_remove_trigger"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesType of trigger to remove
trigger_idYesTrigger or schedule ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It never states that this is an irreversible destructive mutation, what happens when trigger_id does not exist, whether in-flight events are dropped, or what permission level is required — significant gaps for a removal operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the target resource is stated immediately. It is terse to the point of omitting useful context, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

The tool is simple (2 required params, no nesting, no output schema) and the schema fully documents inputs, so basic completeness is met. However, with zero annotation coverage on a destructive operation, the description should disclose irreversibility or failure behavior, which it does not.

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 description coverage is 100% with both parameters documented and the 'type' enum constrained to event/schedule, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond restating that either an event trigger or a schedule can be removed.

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?

States a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('event trigger or schedule') and scopes it to an agent. An agent can distinguish it from kernel_agents_add_trigger without opening the schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the verb and the 'from an agent' qualifier; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or permission notes, and no comparison to alternatives such as kernel_agents_list_triggers for verifying what exists before removal.

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