Horizon MCP Server

delete_application_pool

Destructive

Delete a published application pool to revoke user access immediately; confirm before proceeding.

Instructions

Delete a published application pool.

CAUTION: Users will immediately lose access to this application. Always confirm with the user before calling this.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No	Only used when the server runs with HORIZON_CONFIRMATION=flag (clients without elicitation). Otherwise the user is asked to confirm directly in the client.
`pool_id`	Yes	Application pool ID — obtain from list_application_pools

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0Sep 30, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description

Previous value: -"Must be explicitly True to proceed. Obtain explicit user approval before setting."New value: +"Only used when the server runs with HORIZON_CONFIRMATION=flag (clients without elicitation). Otherwise the user is asked to confirm directly in the client."

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds material context: users immediately lose access, and user confirmation is required. It stops short of describing reversibility or required privileges.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the verb and resource in one sentence, then immediately follows with the caution and confirmation requirement. No filler text.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive delete with an output schema, the description supplies the critical behavioral caveat and confirmation requirement. It leaves minor gaps such as whether deletion is reversible, but annotations and schema cover most of what an agent needs.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents pool_id and confirm. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that baseline.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Names a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('published application pool'), clearly distinct from sibling deletes for desktop pools and RDSH farms. The scope is explicit enough to route correctly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a clear precondition: always confirm with the user before calling. It warns of immediate loss of access, but does not name alternative deletion tools or when not to use this tool.

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

Deploy Server