Permanently delete a Scalix Run service. This cannot be undone: it stops the running instances, releases the public HTTPS URL, erases any attached volumes and discards every revision, so scalix_run_rollback cannot bring it back afterwards. To stop paying for an idle service without losing it, set min_instances to 0 with scalix_run_scale instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Service ID (from scalix_run_list) |
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?
Although annotations already mark destructiveHint: true, the description adds crucial behavioral details: stops running instances, releases public HTTPS URL, erases volumes, discards revisions, and confirms irreversibility. This goes far beyond the annotation's binary signal.
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 sentences: first states the action and immediate irreversibility, second lists all consequences and offers a safer alternative. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.
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 destructive tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what happens, why it matters, and how to avoid unwanted deletion. No gaps remain for the agent to infer.
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?
The schema already describes the only parameter 'id' as 'Service ID (from scalix_run_list)' with 100% coverage. The description adds no new param-specific semantics, but none are needed given the simple, well-documented schema. Baseline 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 opens with 'Permanently delete a Scalix Run service', using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating that scalix_run_rollback cannot undo it and scalix_run_scale is the alternative for pausing.
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 clear when-to-use guidance (permanent deletion) and an explicit alternative for a common use case: 'To stop paying for an idle service without losing it, set min_instances to 0 with scalix_run_scale instead.' This is exemplary usage direction.
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.
Tools are grouped by service prefix and generally target distinct resources/actions. A few execution surfaces could be confused (sandbox_run vs computer_exec vs fn_invoke; build_create vs fn_deploy vs run_deploy), and storage_list is overloaded for both buckets and objects, but descriptions clarify the boundaries well.
The scalix_ prefix plus snake_case is used throughout, and most tools follow <service>_<verb>_<noun>. Minor deviations like scalix_search, scalix_status, and scalix_usage omit a service-domain qualifier, but the overall pattern is predictable and easy to navigate.
53 tools is a very large surface. While the server covers a broad multi-service cloud platform, the count falls well beyond the 25+ threshold and will likely feel overwhelming; many service areas could reasonably be split into separate servers or trimmed.
Several service lifecycles have obvious gaps: the KV store has get/list/set but no delete, storage has upload/download/list but no delete for objects or buckets, functions have deploy/list/invoke but no delete/update, and cron has create but no list/delete. These missing operations create dead ends for agents managing common resources.
