Deletes a trigger, its probe code and its state while keeping past fires in history. Use it to retire unwanted event triggers by ID shown in trigger_list.
Delete a trigger, its probe code and its state. Its past fires stay in the history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trigger_id | Yes | The trigger id, as shown by trigger_list. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not carrying the safety burden alone. It still adds real context beyond them: exactly what is destroyed (probe code, state) and what is preserved (past fire history), which is what an agent needs before an irreversible call.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero padding, with the core action front-loaded and the scope/consequence detail following immediately. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers action, collateral damage, and data retention. Only irreversibility confirmation expectations are unstated, a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the trigger_id description already points to trigger_list as the source of valid ids. The tool description adds nothing further about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb+resource ('Delete a trigger') with an added scope clause naming the collateral ('its probe code and its state'). The verb alone differentiates it from trigger_pause/trigger_resume/trigger_draft among siblings, 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the destructive verb and the note that history survives, which hints at the delete-vs-pause tradeoff, but the description never states when to choose trigger_delete over trigger_pause or trigger_draft, nor any prerequisites or confirmation requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.