Skip to main content
Glama
sjk4425

ncloud-mcp-server

by sjk4425
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ncloud_delete_monitor_group

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete one or more Cloud Insight monitoring target groups by providing the product key, group IDs, and confirm=true.

Instructions

⚠️ Destructive: Delete one or more Cloud Insight monitoring target groups. This will permanently remove the groups.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoMust be true to execute deletion.
prodKeyYesProduct key (cw_key) the monitor groups belong to
monitorGroupIdsYesMonitor group IDs to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv2.0.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / monitorGroupId
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Monitor group ID to delete",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / monitorGroupIds
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Monitor group IDs to delete",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / prodKey
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Product key (cw_key) the monitor groups belong to",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "monitorGroupId"
-]New value: +[
+  "prodKey",
+  "monitorGroupIds"
+]
  2. First observedv1.10.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is structurally covered. The description reinforces permanence ('permanently remove the groups') and flags destructiveness with a warning emoji, but adds no new behavioral detail such as recoverability, cascading effects, or how 'confirm' is enforced.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the destructive warning is front-loaded ahead of the action, which is the right ordering for an irreversible operation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a fully covered schema, existing destructive annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool safely. It could still note the confirm-flag requirement in prose or the force-delete alternative, but nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (confirm, prodKey, monitorGroupIds) are already documented, including the 'must be true to execute deletion' guard. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, 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.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (Cloud Insight monitoring target groups) and notes it operates on 'one or more' groups, resolving the singular-name ambiguity. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling ncloud_delete_monitor_group_force, leaving the agent to guess which delete variant applies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the force-delete sibling or the update variant, and no stated prerequisites beyond what the schema implies. A destructive tool with a close alternative urgently needs that routing information, and none is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools