Delete an integration alias from a Semaphore UI project to remove outdated or incorrect alias mappings. Use when you need to clean up integration configuration.
Remove integration alias. DELETE /project/{project_id}/integrations/aliases/{alias_id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alias_id | Yes | ||
| project_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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the REST endpoint, saying nothing about what is lost, whether attached integration values/matchers are affected, or required permissions — acceptable given annotations, but thin.
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, action front-loaded before the endpoint detail. No filler, though the endpoint restates what the parameter names roughly imply.
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?
A destructive, project-scoped delete with no output schema and undescribed parameters; annotations cover reversibility/safety, but the description leaves unresolved what an agent needs to know about authorization and side effects beyond 'this deletes the alias'.
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% for two integer params, so the description must compensate. The path template does imply alias_id is scoped under project_id, which is useful, but gives no constraints, formats, or error behavior for either.
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 ('Remove') and resource ('integration alias'), and the endpoint path clarifies it is the project-scoped alias rather than the global one. It is distinguishable from delete_integration_alias and create_project_integration_alias, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus delete_integration_alias, list_project_integration_aliases, or update_integration. No prerequisites or exclusions (e.g. whether the alias must be unreferenced first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.