Delete a ConfigSource definition by ID while retaining all collected data. Requires write permission to remove the configuration source.
Delete a ConfigSource definition (requires write permission). Existing collected data is retained.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| configsource_id | Yes | ConfigSource ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that write permission is required and that existing collected data is retained after deletion. These details help the agent understand side effects and authorization requirements, which is especially useful for a destructive operation.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the operation and resource, then adds the two most important behavioral caveats. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant filler or repetition of schema content.
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 single-parameter delete operation with annotations already covering destructive and idempotent hints, the description is complete. It covers the key context: permission requirement, scope of deletion (definition only), and the retention of collected data. No crucial operational detail is missing.
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 only parameter, configsource_id, is fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to since the schema already documents the parameter clearly.
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') with a precise resource ('ConfigSource definition'), making it clear what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling delete operations like delete_datasource and delete_eventsource by naming the ConfigSource resource explicitly.
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 implies the usage context by naming the operation, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as update_configsource or delete_datasource. The added note about retained collected data provides some decision-relevant context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.