Deletes an integration matcher from a Semaphore UI project integration using project, integration, and matcher IDs, removing the matcher configuration.
Removes integration matcher. DELETE /project/{project_id}/integrations/{integration_id}/matchers/{matcher_id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| matcher_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| integration_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so "Removes" restates the structured hint. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations: no cascade behavior, no permission/scope requirements, no mention of what breaks if the matcher is referenced elsewhere.
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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient but terse to the point of under-specification, which the conciseness dimension does not penalize but keeps it from a 5.
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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should carry more: irreversibility, referential-integrity risks, and ID sourcing. Only the endpoint path is supplied.
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 description coverage is 0% and all three parameters are bare integers with only a minimum. The URL template implies the nesting (matcher inside integration inside project), which is mild added value, but there is no guidance on where to obtain the IDs or what happens on a mismatched hierarchy.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Removes integration matcher") and even gives the REST endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as delete_integration, delete_integration_alias, or update_integration_matcher.
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?
There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. The agent must infer from the name alone that this deletes a single matcher and that get_integration_matcher_references might be worth checking first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.