Delete an EventSource definition by ID to stop monitoring it, while keeping existing collected data. Requires write permission.
Delete an EventSource definition (requires write permission). Existing collected data is retained.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eventsource_id | Yes | EventSource 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 signal destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true) and non-read-only status, so the description adds valuable context by clarifying that only the definition is deleted and that collected data persists. It also explicitly requires write permission, which supplements the annotation metadata.
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, front-loaded sentence that names the action, the object, the permission requirement, and the retention behavior. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant or filler 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 simple one-parameter destructive operation, the description plus annotations are complete: the tool's action, object, permission prerequisite, and data-retention side effect are all covered. No output schema exists, but none is needed for a straightforward delete operation.
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 input schema fully documents the only parameter, eventsource_id, as 'EventSource ID to delete' (100% coverage). The description does not add much beyond the schema, but this is acceptable because the schema already provides sufficient meaning for a single, self-explanatory parameter.
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 states a specific action ('Delete') and a precise resource ('EventSource definition'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_eventsource, update_eventsource, and get_eventsources. It also adds a meaningful scope qualifier by noting that collected data is retained.
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 when to use this tool: when an EventSource definition should be removed. It provides a prerequisite ('requires write permission') and a key behavioral caveat ('Existing collected data is retained'), but it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.