Delete Endpoint
delete_endpointAuthenticated tool to disable endpoint.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appId | Yes | ||
| endpointId | Yes |
delete_endpointAuthenticated tool to disable endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appId | Yes | ||
| endpointId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true. Description adds 'Authenticated', which is useful context. No mention of reversibility or side effects, but given the annotation, minimal additional value.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence, but overly terse. Front-loads the action, yet misses important details. Could be restructured to include essential context.
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 delete operation with two required params and no output schema, the description is incomplete. Lacks information on consequences, irreversibility, or typical usage patterns.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description adds no meaning to the parameters. Parameter names 'appId' and 'endpointId' are self-explanatory, but the description fails to elaborate on constraints, defaults, or relationships.
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?
Description clearly states the action (disable/delete) and resource (endpoint). Distinguishes from siblings like 'update_endpoint' and 'archive_source', but not explicitly. Slightly ambiguous with 'disable' vs 'delete', but still clear.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between `list_messages`, `list_recent_events`, and `list_message_attempts`, and between `replay_event` and `replay_events`. However, the descriptions generally clarify differences.
The naming mostly follows a verb_noun pattern (create_, list_, get_, update_, delete_), with consistent snake_case. A few tools like `rotate_endpoint_secret` and `upsert_event_type` deviate but still use verb_noun structure.
With 52 tools, the set is extremely large and may overwhelm agents. While the domain is complex, this many tools reduce coherence and make selection more difficult.
The tool surface is very comprehensive, covering CRUD for most resources, replay, retries, anomaly management, and webhook setup. Minor gaps exist (no delete for destinations, no update for sources), but core workflows are well-supported.