Skip to main content
Glama

squirrelscan

by com.squirrelscan

Delete a website

delete_website
Destructive

Delete a website from the organization (soft delete: past audits, reports, and issues are preserved, and published report links keep working). Frees a slot under the plan's website limit. Re-adding the same domain later registers a fresh website with a new website_id. Call once without confirm to see what will happen; call again with confirm: true to delete. To remove many sites at once, use delete_websites.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoApprove the deletion. Omit on the first call to see the effect; set true to delete after the user approves.
website_idYesWebsite id from list_websites, run_audit, or add_website.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but description adds substantial context: soft delete preserves audits/reports/issues, published links keep working, frees a plan slot, and re-adding creates a new website_id. It also discloses the confirm-step behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each delivers a distinct piece of information: soft-delete semantics, slot effect, re-add behavior, and confirmation workflow plus bulk alternative. No redundant words; front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The tool's destructive nature is fully contextualized: safety workflow, side effects, and alternative for bulk deletion are all covered. No output schema is needed, and the description provides complete guidance for a complex action.

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% with detailed descriptions for both website_id and confirm. The description reinforces the confirm parameter's purpose through the two-step workflow but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 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 opens with 'Delete a website from the organization' – a specific verb and resource with scope. It immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling delete_websites by noting bulk deletion separately. The soft-delete behavior and slot freeing further clarify the exact function.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly describes the two-call workflow (without confirm, then with confirm) and names the alternative for bulk deletion: 'To remove many sites at once, use delete_websites.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All squirrelscan toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct resource-action pair: websites, audits, issues, rules, credits, notifications, and account info are cleanly separated. Even the close pairs (delete_website vs delete_websites, get_rule vs list_rules) are clear singular/bulk or fetch-all vs fetch-one distinctions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: add_, delete_, get_, list_, run_, comment_, send_, create_. The only outlier, whoami, is a conventional standalone command and does not break the overall predictability.

Tool Count4/5

At 20 tools, the surface is slightly heavy, but the count is justified by the wide domain coverage: audit lifecycle, issue tracking, rule catalog, billing/credits, notifications, and account management. Each tool appears to earn its place, and none feel redundant.

Completeness4/5

The core workflow is well covered: run an audit, poll it, fetch a report, compare audits, list and comment on issues, browse rules, and manage websites. Minor gaps exist—no cancel-audit tool, no update_website, and issues cannot be status-changed—but agents can work around these using the existing tools.

Resources