Delete an alert rule in LogicMonitor by providing its rule ID. Use it to remove outdated or unnecessary alert configurations and prevent unwanted notifications.
Delete an alert rule from LogicMonitor (requires write permission)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule_id | Yes | Alert rule ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds one piece of context the annotations lack — the write-permission requirement — which is genuinely useful, but it contributes nothing else beyond what annotations already convey.
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?
A single 10-word sentence with the core action front-loaded ('Delete an alert rule from LogicMonitor') followed by a concise permission caveat. Every word earns its place; there is zero padding.
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?
For a one-parameter destructive action with safety-relevant annotations, the essentials are covered: what it does, what it operates on, and the permission needed. The only minor gap is the absence of any hint about response/return or behavior when the rule_id doesn't exist, though idempotentHint partially addresses the latter.
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 100%: the single parameter rule_id is fully described as 'Alert rule ID to delete' in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the full burden.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete'), names the exact resource ('alert rule'), and scopes it to a system ('LogicMonitor'). The action verb distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_alert_rule, create_alert_rule, update_alert_rule, and export_alert_rule without needing to open the schema.
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?
The usage scenario is implied by the verb — choose this tool when you want to remove an alert rule. The parenthetical 'requires write permission' adds a prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance (e.g., pointing to update_alert_rule for modifications or get_alert_rule for inspection).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.