cronitor_delete_monitorPERMANENTLY deletes a monitor from Cronitor. Destructive and irreversible. Cronitor API: DELETE /monitors/{key}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Monitor key/id to delete. |
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?
Description reinforces the annotation destructiveHint=true by emphasizing destructive and irreversible nature, adding context beyond the annotation.
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?
Two concise sentences with critical information front-loaded ("PERMANENTLY deletes"), no unnecessary words.
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 1-parameter delete tool with destructive annotation, the description is sufficiently complete; could mention return behavior but not essential.
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 description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's description of the 'key' parameter.
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 strong verb "PERMANENTLY deletes" and specifies the resource "monitor from Cronitor", clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list or update.
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?
The description implies use when permanent deletion is intended but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action: create, delete, get, list, ping, update. There is no ambiguity or overlap between them.
All tools follow the 'cronitor_<verb>_monitor' pattern with snake_case and consistent verb placement. Minor pluralization in 'list_monitors' is standard for listing endpoints.
6 tools cover the core lifecycle of monitors without unnecessary extras. The count is well-scoped for a monitoring server.
The set provides full CRUD operations plus telemetry via ping. There are no obvious gaps for managing monitors.