Remove a scheduled downtime (SDT) from LogicMonitor by its SDT ID. Use this tool to cancel an existing maintenance window when it is no longer needed.
Delete a scheduled downtime (requires write permission)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sdt_id | Yes | SDT 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 description need not repeat those. It adds 'requires write permission,' which is a useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations. However, it does not explain what happens on deletion (e.g., cascading effects, error behavior), leaving some transparency gaps.
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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the permission note is immediately relevant. It is slightly under-specified but efficient for its length.
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 deletion tool with one fully documented parameter and strong annotations (destructive, idempotent, readOnly), the description is largely adequate. It adds the permission requirement, but omits details like idempotency behavior or consequences of deleting a non-existent SDT. These are minor given the annotation coverage, but the description could be more complete.
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 provides 100% coverage for sdt_id with the description 'SDT ID to delete.' The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb (delete) and resource (scheduled downtime), making the primary purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling bulk_delete_sdt, though the singular phrasing and parameter imply single-item deletion.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bulk_delete_sdt, update_sdt, or list_sdts. The only additional context is 'requires write permission,' which is a prerequisite, not a usage directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.