Graylog MCP Server

delete_saved_search

Remove a saved Graylog search by specifying its name. Clean up unused or outdated search configurations directly.

Instructions

Delete a saved search by name.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "delete_saved_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	The name of the saved search to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.3.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description simply restates the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, what happens if the saved search does not exist, or any required permissions. With no annotations, the description carries the full responsibility and fails to add any context beyond the tool name.

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?

The description is extremely compact, using one sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. While it could be more informative, conciseness is excellent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a simple deletion with one parameter, but the description omits important details such as return values, error behavior, and permanence of deletion. There is no output schema and no annotations, so these details should have been included in the description. The description is not sufficient for an agent to understand the full impact of calling this tool.

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?

The input schema fully documents the 'name' parameter with its own description, so the description's 'by name' adds nothing new. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies. No extra semantic value is provided.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'saved search' and identifies the parameter 'by name'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like save_search and get_saved_search, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, such as the saved search needing to exist, nor does it describe what to do if the name is not found. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.