Skip to main content
Glama

Delete site

delete_site
Destructive

Deletes a site permanently: returns approve_url, where the user types the site address. Again with confirm_token: its status.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
site_tokenNoFrom an anonymous deploy (secret)
confirm_tokenNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
approve_urlNo
agent_messageNo
confirm_tokenNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / agent_message
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / approve_url
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / site_token / description
      Added value: +"From an anonymous deploy (secret)"
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm_token / description
      Removed value: -"From the first call: the deletion status"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "properties": {
      +    "confirm_token": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  4. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / site / description
      Removed value: -"Site name"
    • removedInput schema / properties / site_token / description
      Removed value: -"From the first deploy (no account)"
  5. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / site / description
      Previous value: -"Site name, e.g. brave-otter-4821"New value: +"Site name"
    • changedInput schema / properties / site_token / description
      Previous value: -"site_token from the first deploy (anonymous sites only)"New value: +"From the first deploy (no account)"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
      -  "additionalProperties": {},
      -  "properties": {
      -    "agent_message": {
      -      "type": "string"
      -    },
      -    "confirm_token": {
      -      "type": "string"
      -    },
      -    "error": {
      -      "description": "On failure (isError): {code, message}"
      -    }
      -  },
      -  "type": "object"
      -}New value: +null
  6. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: deletion is permanent and requires an approve_url/confirm_token confirmation round-trip. The second sentence is grammatically unclear, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is short, but the second sentence ('Again with confirm_token: its status.') is cryptic and poorly structured. It is concise without being clear, which is a structural flaw rather than excess length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in depth, and the annotations cover the destructive profile. Still, for a destructive open-world tool with low schema coverage, the description should more clearly explain the confirmation flow, site_token usage, and what happens on a failed or missing confirmation.

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 description coverage is only 33%, so the description must carry more weight. It partially explains confirm_token (used on a second call to get status) and implies the 'site' value is the site address typed by the user, but it never mentions site_token, which is documented only in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a site permanently'), and the word 'permanently' signals scope beyond a generic delete. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'bring_back_sites', so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It implies a two-step procedure: first call returns approve_url for the user to type the site address, then call again with confirm_token to get status. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives or what prerequisites must be met before starting the flow.

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.

Resources