Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Latent Defense MCP Server

Latent Defense MCP Server

Official
by latent-defense
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

remove_ticket_provider

Remove a configured ticketing provider from your Latent Defense deployment to stop ticket integration.

Instructions

Remove a configured ticketing provider.

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": {
      "provider": "<provider>"
    },
    "name": "remove_ticket_provider"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
providerYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Description does not disclose behavioral traits such as persistence, side effects, or required permissions. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to provide safety or effect details.

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?

Description is very concise and to the point. However, it might be too brief at the expense of clarity. Could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

For a simple removal tool with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could be more complete by stating the effect (e.g., the provider is permanently removed) and mentioning the output schema content (which exists but is not described).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds no meaning to the parameter beyond its name. With 0% schema coverage, the description should explain what the 'provider' parameter expects (e.g., ID, name, or other identifier). Currently, the agent must guess.

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 (Remove) and the resource (ticketing provider). It distinguishes from sibling tools like configure_ticket_provider (add/update) and get_ticket_provider (retrieve). However, it does not clarify whether removal is permanent or if it has side effects.

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 usage guidance provided. Does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_active_ticket_provider or configure_ticket_provider. Lacks prerequisites or consequences.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools