Skip to main content
Glama
fettlesh

fettle-mcp

by fettlesh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Remove a tag everywhere

delete_tag
DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a tag from every monitor and heartbeat that carries it, leaving the items in place. Use it to retire a tag across the organization; requires write scope.

Instructions

Remove a tag from every monitor and heartbeat that carries it; the items themselves stay, and no tool restores the tag. Use it to retire a tag across the organization; to take it off chosen monitors only use bulk_update_monitor_tags with remove, and to rename it use rename_tag. Requires a key with the write scope. A tag nothing carries is not an error (both counts are 0). Returns from (the tag), monitors_updated and heartbeats_updated.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagYesThe tag to remove, exactly as list_tags shows it.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fromYes
monitors_updatedYes
heartbeats_updatedYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.6.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / tag / description
      Added value: +"The tag to remove, exactly as list_tags shows it."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "from": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "heartbeats_updated": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "monitors_updated": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "from",
+    "monitors_updated",
+    "heartbeats_updated"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.5.4

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false, but the description adds behavior beyond them: the tagged items survive, no tool can restore the tag (irreversibility), a write-scoped key is required, and deleting an unattached tag is not an error (counts 0). These are meaningful operational facts not derivable from the annotations.

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-loaded with the effect and its scope, then alternatives, then prerequisites, then edge cases and return shape. Every clause carries distinct information with no filler 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?

For a destructive, single-parameter mutation with an output schema present, the description covers effect, irreversibility, alternatives, auth requirement, and the empty-input edge case. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the 'tag' argument and its format ('exactly as list_tags shows it'). The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond restating that the tag is echoed back in the response, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (remove) and resource (tag) plus the exact scope: 'from every monitor and heartbeat that carries it'. It explicitly contrasts itself with the two nearest siblings (bulk_update_monitor_tags for selective removal, rename_tag for renaming), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('retire a tag across the organization') and two when-not cases with named alternatives and their selecting conditions ('take it off chosen monitors only use bulk_update_monitor_tags with remove'; 'to rename it use rename_tag'). 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