Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@sonarapp/mcp

@sonarapp/mcp

Official
by trysonar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

sonar_delete_alert

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove an alert subscription from your Sonar workspace using its unique UUID.

Instructions

WRITE tool — delete an alert subscription in the caller's Sonar workspace. Requires a Full plan (trial counts) and an API key with the write scope.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "sonar_delete_alert"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe alert subscription UUID — the `id` returned by sonar_list_alerts or sonar_set_alert.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful context: the plan requirement and scope, which are not covered by annotations. No contradiction.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted words. The key information (verb, resource, prerequisites) is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple 1-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and parameter source. It could mention error behavior or success response but is largely complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by referencing the source of the id parameter (sonar_list_alerts or sonar_set_alert), helping the agent understand where to obtain the UUID.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('delete'), the resource ('alert subscription'), and the scope ('in the caller's Sonar workspace'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sonar_set_alert (create/update) and sonar_list_alerts (list).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides prerequisites ('Full plan', 'write scope API key') and labels the tool as a 'WRITE tool'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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