RunWhen Platform MCP

Delete Slx

delete_slx

Soft-deletes an SLX from a workspace on the RunWhen platform, tombstoning the record so corestate can clean up associated runbooks and SLIs.

Instructions

Soft-delete an SLX from the workspace via the v4 short-name endpoint.

Uses DELETE /api/v4/workspaces/{ws}/slxs/{slx_short_name}, which tombstones the SLX row (deleted_by / deleted_at) and lets the corestate reconcile loop clean up the corresponding runbook and SLI rows. This is the same endpoint the UI hits, so behaviour matches what users see in the platform.

Deletion is workspace-global — it is not scoped to a Git branch. The v4 endpoint tombstones the SLX row in PAPI; there is no per-branch variant. Callers previously wired to a Git-oriented delete path should stop passing branch / commit_message (both removed) and rely on the workspace-scoped soft delete.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slx_name`	Yes	Short name of the SLX to delete (e.g. 'k8s-pod-health').
`workspace_name`	Yes	The workspace to delete from (e.g. 't-oncall').

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.1Jul 7, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / branch

Removed value: -{
-  "default": "main",
-  "description": "Git branch to delete from.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / commit_message

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "Custom commit message."
-}

First observedv0.1.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that this is a SOFT delete (tombstone via deleted_by/deleted_at), that a reconcile loop cleans up runbook and SLI rows, and that behavior matches the UI endpoint. It omits permission/auth requirements and whether the tombstone can be reversed.

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?

The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence and the paragraphs are logically ordered (endpoint, mechanism, scope, migration). There is mild redundancy, since tombstoning and workspace-global scope are restated in the third paragraph.

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 soft-delete mutation with no annotations, the description covers mechanism, side effects, and scope, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. It would be fully complete with a note on required permissions (or that none beyond workspace access are needed).

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the two parameters are already documented and baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating that branch and commit_message have been removed, which head off a caller passing obsolete arguments.

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?

The first sentence gives a precise verb+resource+scope ('Soft-delete an SLX from the workspace via the v4 short-name endpoint'), and the endpoint is spelled out. The note that deletion is workspace-global and not Git-branch-scoped implicitly separates it from Git-oriented siblings like commit_slx.

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?

It gives clear context for use (soft delete, workspace-global scope) and a migration caveat telling prior Git-path callers to drop branch/commit_message. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or an explicit 'use this when / not when' rule, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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

Deploy Server