Delete a recipient group in LogicMonitor to remove unused alert notification groupings. Requires write permission and the group ID.
Delete a recipient group (requires write permission)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | Recipient group ID |
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 covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — the write permission requirement — but does not disclose other side effects or consequences of deletion. No contradiction with annotations.
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 primary action. The parenthetical 'requires write permission' adds relevant context without waste.
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 delete operation, the schema fully describes group_id, annotations cover idempotency/destructiveness, and the description states the permission requirement. The definition is nearly complete, though a note about cascading effects or permanence would marginally improve it.
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 coverage is 100% with group_id already described as 'Recipient group ID'. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 verb and resource: 'Delete a recipient group'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling operations like create_recipient_group, update_recipient_group, and get_recipient_group, making its 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 implies usage through the verb 'Delete' and adds a prerequisite ('requires write permission'), but it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any when-not scenarios. The usage is clear by context but not explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.