Skip to main content
Glama
jamesbrink

MCP Server for Coroot

delete_integration

Remove integration configurations from Coroot projects to manage monitoring connections and clean up unused integrations.

Instructions

Delete an integration configuration.

Removes an integration from the project.

Args: project_id: Project ID integration_type: Type of integration to delete

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
integration_typeYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Core implementation of the delete_integration tool. Sends a DELETE request to the Coroot API endpoint `/api/project/{project_id}/integrations/{integration_type}` and handles various response formats including 204 No Content.
    async def delete_integration(
        self, project_id: str, integration_type: str
    ) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Delete an integration configuration.
    
        Args:
            project_id: Project ID.
            integration_type: Type of integration to delete.
    
        Returns:
            Deletion status.
        """
        response = await self._request(
            "DELETE", f"/api/project/{project_id}/integrations/{integration_type}"
        )
    
        # 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 handler function decorated with @mcp.tool(). This is the entry point for the 'delete_integration' tool in the FastMCP server. Delegates to the implementation wrapper.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def delete_integration(project_id: str, integration_type: str) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Delete an integration configuration.
    
        Removes an integration from the project.
    
        Args:
            project_id: Project ID
            integration_type: Type of integration to delete
        """
        return await delete_integration_impl(project_id, integration_type)  # type: ignore[no-any-return]
  • Registration of the 'delete_integration' tool using FastMCP's @mcp.tool() decorator. The docstring provides the tool description and parameter schema inferred from type hints.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def delete_integration(project_id: str, integration_type: str) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Delete an integration configuration.
    
        Removes an integration from the project.
    
        Args:
            project_id: Project ID
            integration_type: Type of integration to delete
        """
        return await delete_integration_impl(project_id, integration_type)  # type: ignore[no-any-return]
  • Helper implementation wrapper that calls the CorootClient.delete_integration method, formats the response, and provides standardized success/error handling.
    async def delete_integration_impl(
        project_id: str, integration_type: str
    ) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Delete an integration."""
        result = await get_client().delete_integration(project_id, integration_type)
        return {
            "success": True,
            "message": f"{integration_type} integration deleted successfully",
            "result": result,
        }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Removes an integration from the project,' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting other configurations), or includes confirmation steps. For a destructive tool, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences: a clear purpose statement, a reinforcing detail, and parameter explanations. It's front-loaded with the main action. There's minimal waste, though the parameter section could be more integrated. Overall, it's efficient and well-structured.

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 a destructive tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permanence, permissions) and usage context. The output schema may handle return values, but the description doesn't address critical mutation aspects, leaving room for improvement.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists both parameters ('project_id' and 'integration_type') with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't specify formats (e.g., what values 'integration_type' accepts) or constraints, leaving gaps. The description provides basic semantics but not full compensation for the coverage deficit.

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 ('integration configuration'), specifying it removes an integration from a project. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'configure_integration' or 'get_integration' by focusing on deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete tools (e.g., 'delete_project'), slightly reducing specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing integration), exclusions, or comparisons with siblings like 'delete_project' or 'configure_integration'. The description only states what it does, not when or why to use it.

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