Permanently remove a LastPing monitor by UUID. Requires an API key with write scope; this action cannot be undone.
Requires an API key with the write scope or higher. Permanently delete a LastPing monitor by UUID. This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Monitor UUID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true)Skip, so the description adds value by emphasizing irreversibility and specifying the required API key scope. However, it does not mention whether other resources are affected (e.g., incidents or destinations) but the description is sufficient for the safety profile.
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 concise and front-loaded: it begins with the essential prerequisite (API scope), then the action, and ends with the critical warning. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without any 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: prerequisite, action, irreversibility. It lacks details about return values or side effects, but for a delete operation with annotations, this is adequate.
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%, so the schema already documents the 'id' parameter as 'Monitor UUID'. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, but since the schema is complete, a 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 the action ('Permanently delete') and the resource ('LastPing monitor by UUID'), and it distinguishes from siblings like pause_monitor or snooze_monitor by emphasizing permanence. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the general delete_* siblings, though the resource specificity is sufficient.
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?
It provides a clear context for when to use it (when permanently deleting a monitor) and adds an important prerequisite (API key with write scope or higher). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the permanence warning implies to avoid if wanting to retain the monitor, which is a reasonable implicit guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.