Skip to main content
Glama

Delete maintenance

instatus_delete_maintenance
Destructive

PERMANENTLY DELETES a scheduled maintenance by id — this MODIFIES live status-page data and cannot be undone. Instatus: DELETE /v1/{page_id}/maintenances/{maintenance_id}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
page_idYesThe status page's id.
maintenance_idYesThe maintenance's id to delete.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already indicates destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: 'PERMANENTLY DELETES', 'MODIFIES live status-page data', and 'cannot be undone', which enhances transparency beyond the annotation alone.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no fluff. Critical information is front-loaded with emphasis (all-caps 'PERMANENTLY DELETES'). Every part is essential.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a delete operation with no output schema, the description provides the key behavioral details (permanence, live data impact) and the endpoint. However, it does not mention the expected response (e.g., success confirmation) or any prerequisites. Somewhat complete but could be more thorough.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it says 'by id' but both IDs are already documented). With 100% schema coverage, baseline score is appropriate.

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 ('PERMANENTLY DELETES') and resource ('scheduled maintenance by id'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like instatus_delete_incident or instatus_update_maintenance by specifying the exact operation and target.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description warns about irreversibility and live data modification, implying caution. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., update or create maintenance). The HTTP endpoint is mentioned but no comparative context.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource (component, incident, maintenance, page) and action (create, get, list, update, delete). There is no overlap or ambiguity between tool purposes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the pattern 'instatus_<action>_<resource>' in snake_case. Names are predictable and consistent across all 14 tools.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools cover the core operations for status page management (components, incidents, maintenances, pages) without being excessive. The number feels appropriate for the domain.

Completeness4/5

Incidents and maintenances have full CRUD coverage. Components lack create and delete tools, and pages have only list. These are minor gaps that may require out-of-band management.