New Relic MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete Log Parsing Rule

delete_log_parsing_rule

Deletes a New Relic log parsing rule by rule ID, with an optional account ID, to remove obsolete or incorrect log parsing logic.

Instructions

Delete a log parsing rule

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": {
      "rule_id": "<rule_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_log_parsing_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rule_id`	Yes
`account_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv1.3.2Nov 7, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- removedInput schema / properties / account_id / title
```
Removed value: -"Account Id"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / rule_id / title
```
Removed value: -"Rule Id"
```
- removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"delete_log_parsing_ruleArguments"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / result / title
```
Removed value: -"Result"
```
- removedOutput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"delete_log_parsing_ruleOutput"
```
- addedOutput schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-result
```
Added value: +true
```
Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0Jan 4, 2026
- addedInput schema / title
```
Added value: +"delete_log_parsing_ruleArguments"
```
First observedNov 18, 2025

TDQS

D1.6/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure for a destructive mutation, and it discloses nothing. It omits whether deletion is permanent or reversible, permission/authorization requirements, what happens to dependent pipelines or existing parsed logs, and the behavior of the optional account_id scoping.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The sentence is short and contains zero filler, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline. For a destructive tool it should front-load consequences and prerequisites that are simply absent.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still lacks anything an agent needs to call this destructive tool safely: scope of rule_id, the role of account_id, and irreversibility. Against the complexity of a delete operation with an undocumented optional parameter, this is inadequate.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 2 parameters, and the description compensates for none of it. rule_id's format and whether account_id narrows/overrides scope remain undocumented, so the agent must guess at both parameters' meaning.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title: 'Delete a log parsing rule' adds no scope, target, or distinguishing detail beyond delete_log_parsing_rule. It does not differentiate this tool from siblings like update_log_parsing_rule, test_log_parsing_rule, or list_log_parsing_rules, so an agent learns nothing it could not read from the name alone.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many log-parsing-rule siblings (create, update, test, generate, list), nor any precondition such as the rule needing to exist or confirmation before destructive action. Nothing indicates when this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.

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