Skip to main content
Glama
fettlesh

fettle-mcp

by fettlesh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Delete a monitor

delete_monitor
DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently deletes one uptime monitor, stopping checks and removing it from the organization. Use only for explicit deletion requests; otherwise pause the monitor to keep its history.

Instructions

Delete one monitor: it stops being checked and disappears from the organization's monitors, and no tool restores it. Use it only when the user explicitly asked for deletion; otherwise prefer pause_monitor, which keeps the monitor and its history. There is no bulk delete. Requires a key with the write scope. Returns {"success": true}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
monitor_idYesThe monitor's uuid from list_monitors. An id that is not a monitor of this organization, or a deleted one, is a 404.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
successYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.6.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / monitor_id / description
      Added value: +"The monitor's uuid from list_monitors. An id that is not a monitor of this organization, or a deleted one, is a 404."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "success": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.5.4

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the irreversibility guarantee ('no tool restores it'), the side effect on monitoring ('stops being checked'), the authorization prerequisite ('Requires a key with the write scope'), and the 404 semantics on unknown/deleted ids. These go meaningfully beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Dense and well front-loaded: the destructive effect and irreversibility come before the alternative and the prerequisite. The trailing 'Returns {"success": true}' restates what the existing output schema already conveys, a minor redundancy that keeps it short of a perfect score.

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?

For a single-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: reversibility, authorization, sibling routing, and bulk-delete absence. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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% and the single monitor_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (uuid format, source from list_monitors, 404 on invalid/deleted id). The description therefore does not need to compensate and adds no parameter-level detail the schema lacks — baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Delete one monitor') and immediately describes the effect: it stops being checked and disappears from the organization's monitors, with no restoration path. It also explicitly contrasts with the closest sibling (pause_monitor) and rules out a bulk variant, so an agent can select it confidently without opening another schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('only when the user explicitly asked for deletion'), explicit when-not ('otherwise prefer pause_monitor, which keeps the monitor and its history'), and an explicit scope exclusion ('There is no bulk delete'). Nothing is left to 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