Skip to main content
Glama
fclairamb

SolidPing

Official
by fclairamb
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Hybrid

Delete check

delete_check
DestructiveIdempotent

Soft-delete a monitoring check by UID or slug: stops runs, resolves incidents, removes schedules, and keeps history. Cannot delete checks other checks tunnel through.

Instructions

Soft-delete a monitoring check by UID or slug. The check stops running immediately, its active incidents are resolved and its scheduling jobs removed; historical results are kept. A check that other checks tunnel through is refused. To stop a check without losing it, use update_check with enabled:false instead. Returns {deleted: true, identifier}. Requires the mcp scope (mcp:read tokens are refused) and at least the user role in the organization.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
identifierYesCheck UID or URL-friendly slug, e.g. "api-prod" or "63d49e55-97e3-4e8c-b7ab-c862de7a43f3".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deletedYesAlways true on success.
identifierYesThe UID or slug that was deleted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.38.5
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "deleted": {
+      "description": "Always true on success.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "identifier": {
+      "description": "The UID or slug that was deleted.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "deleted",
+    "identifier"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.32.1

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint/idempotentHint) by enumerating exactly what happens: check stops, active incidents resolved, scheduling jobs removed, historical results kept. It also discloses the auth requirements (mcp scope, mcp:read refused, user role minimum) and the refusal case, which annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the core action and outcome, then layers in the caveat and alternative. Every clause carries distinct information (side effects, refusal rule, alternative tool, auth) with no padding or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still names them. Combined with side-effect disclosure, refusal semantics, alternative routing and auth preconditions, an agent has everything needed to call this 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% and the single identifier parameter is fully documented with examples in the schema, so the description only restates 'by UID or slug'. It adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured field, which is the expected baseline here.

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 ('Soft-delete a monitoring check') plus the accepted identifier forms (UID or slug). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_check and get_check, and 'soft-delete' signals the mutation semantics up front.

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 ('To stop a check without losing it, use update_check with enabled:false instead') and states the exclusion condition (checks other checks tunnel through are refused). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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