Skip to main content
Glama
jamesbrink

MCP Server for Coroot

delete_dashboard

Remove custom dashboards from Coroot projects to manage monitoring interfaces and maintain organized performance tracking environments.

Instructions

Delete a custom dashboard.

Permanently removes a dashboard from the project.

Args: project_id: Project ID dashboard_id: Dashboard ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
dashboard_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Core implementation of dashboard deletion: sends POST request to Coroot API /api/project/{project_id}/dashboards/{dashboard_id} with {"action": "delete"} and handles various response types.
    async def delete_dashboard(
        self, project_id: str, dashboard_id: str
    ) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Delete a dashboard.
    
        Args:
            project_id: Project ID.
            dashboard_id: Dashboard ID.
    
        Returns:
            Deletion status.
        """
        request_data = {"action": "delete"}
    
        response = await self._request(
            "POST",
            f"/api/project/{project_id}/dashboards/{dashboard_id}",
            json=request_data,
        )
    
        # Handle empty response (204 or empty body)
        if response.status_code == 204:
            return {"status": "deleted"}
    
        # Try to parse JSON response
        try:
            content = response.text.strip()
            if not content:
                # Empty response body with 200 status
                return {"status": "deleted"}
            data: dict[str, Any] = response.json()
            return data
        except Exception:
            # If parsing fails, assume success if status code is 2xx
            if 200 <= response.status_code < 300:
                return {"status": "deleted"}
            raise
  • MCP tool registration for 'delete_dashboard' using FastMCP @mcp.tool() decorator. This defines the tool schema via parameters and docstring, and points to the implementation.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def delete_dashboard(project_id: str, dashboard_id: str) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Delete a custom dashboard.
    
        Permanently removes a dashboard from the project.
    
        Args:
            project_id: Project ID
            dashboard_id: Dashboard ID
        """
        return await delete_dashboard_impl(project_id, dashboard_id)  # type: ignore[no-any-return]
  • MCP server wrapper handler that calls the CorootClient.delete_dashboard method, handles errors via @handle_errors decorator, and formats the success response.
    async def delete_dashboard_impl(project_id: str, dashboard_id: str) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Delete a dashboard."""
        client = get_client()
        result = await client.delete_dashboard(project_id, dashboard_id)
        return {
            "success": True,
            "message": "Dashboard deleted successfully",
            "result": result,
        }
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Permanently removes a dashboard from the project,' which clearly indicates this is a destructive, irreversible operation - important context not captured in structured fields. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens to associated data. The description adds some behavioral value but leaves significant gaps.

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?

The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a behavioral warning and parameter listing. Each sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does, the second warns about permanence, and the third documents parameters. However, the parameter section could be more integrated with the main description rather than appearing as a separate block.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 2 parameters, and an output schema (which means return values are documented elsewhere), the description does an adequate but incomplete job. It covers the core action and permanence warning but misses important context like permissions needed, error handling, confirmation requirements, or what the output contains. The presence of an output schema reduces but doesn't eliminate the need for behavioral context.

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 description includes an 'Args:' section that lists both parameters (project_id and dashboard_id) with brief labels, but with 0% schema description coverage, this only partially compensates. The schema provides titles ('Project Id', 'Dashboard Id') but no descriptions. The tool description adds minimal semantic context - it doesn't explain what constitutes valid IDs, where to find them, or format requirements. For a 2-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, this is adequate but minimal.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a custom dashboard'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other dashboard-related tools like 'create_dashboard', 'update_dashboard', and 'get_dashboard' by specifying the destructive delete operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete operations like 'delete_project' or 'delete_api_key' beyond the resource type.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing dashboard), consequences of deletion, or when to choose this over other dashboard management tools. The sibling tools list includes 'create_dashboard', 'update_dashboard', and 'get_dashboard', but the description offers no comparison or usage context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jamesbrink/mcp-coroot'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server