Nife MCP Server

Delete site

delete_site

Destructive

PERMANENTLY delete a site and all of its deployment history. This cannot be undone. Only call after the user has explicitly confirmed, by name, that they want it deleted.

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": {
      "site_name": "<site_name>",
      "confirm_site_name": "<confirm_site_name>"
    },
    "name": "delete_site"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_name`	Yes	Name of the site to delete
`confirm_site_name`	Yes	Must exactly equal site_name. Only fill this in after the user has explicitly confirmed the deletion.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds concrete detail beyond that: deployment history is destroyed along with the site, and the action is irreversible. It does not mention permission requirements or downstream effects on custom domains/traffic monitoring.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The destructive scope is front-loaded, followed by the irreversibility warning, then the confirmation precondition — a sensible ordering for a dangerous operation.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety semantics, so the description need only convey scope, irreversibility and the confirmation gate — all present. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already explains that confirm_site_name must exactly equal site_name and should only be filled after user confirmation. The description reinforces the confirmation timing but adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (delete a site) plus the exact blast radius (all of its deployment history). No sibling tool performs site deletion, and the ALL-CAPS 'PERMANENTLY' makes the operation type unmistakable.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition: call only after the user has confirmed by name. That is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives for adjacent intents (e.g., reverting a version or redeploying), so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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

All Nife MCP Server tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?