Delete a LogicMonitor collector by ID. Requires write permission; the operation blocks if devices are still assigned to the collector.
Delete a collector (requires write permission). Blocks if devices are still assigned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collector_id | Yes | Collector 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 and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds value by specifying that write permission is required and that the operation blocks if devices are assigned—behavior beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations; the idempotentHint is not contradicted.
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?
The description is concise—two sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical precondition is stated immediately. Every word earns its place.
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 simple delete operation with one parameter, the description covers the key behavioral aspect (blocking on assigned devices) and permission requirement. The annotations handle destructiveness and idempotency. No output schema is needed for a typical delete; the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'collector_id' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The parameter is self-explanatory.
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 clearly states the action 'Delete a collector' with a specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling read tools like get_collector and update_collector by explicitly focusing on deletion, and adds preconditions (write permission) and a blocking condition, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 description provides usage context by noting that write permission is required and that the operation blocks if devices are still assigned. This implicitly tells the agent to unassign devices first. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use, but the preconditions are clear enough. Could be improved by naming alternatives, but for a delete operation this is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.