Delete a website check from LogicMonitor using its website ID. Requires write permission to remove the monitoring configuration.
Delete a website check from LogicMonitor (requires write permission)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| website_id | Yes | Website 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 annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds a useful authorization requirement ('requires write permission') that goes beyond the structured data. It does not contradict the annotations, though it could mention irreversibility or error behavior in more depth.
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 sentence with the main action front-loaded and the permission note parenthesized. Every clause carries meaningful information and there is no filler.
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 annotations cover destructive and idempotent behavior and the schema fully documents the parameter. The description is mostly sufficient; the only minor gap is not pointing to how to locate the website_id or explicitly excluding website groups from its scope.
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% and the sole parameter (website_id) is already described as 'Website ID to delete'. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Delete'), names the exact resource ('website check'), and scopes it to LogicMonitor. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like delete_website_group by specifying 'website check' rather than a group.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_website_group, nor are exclusions or prerequisites (beyond the inline write-permission note) stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the verb and resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.