Skip to main content
Glama

squirrelscan

by com.squirrelscan
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Delete websites in bulk

delete_websites
Destructive

Delete up to 50 websites in one call, for cleaning up a dashboard that has filled with one-off or prospect audits. Same soft delete as delete_website (past audits, reports, and issues are preserved, published report links keep working, slots are freed) and the same two-step confirm: call once without confirm to see the domain behind every id, then again with confirm: true. EVERY result echoes the domain, so read them back to the user before and after: an id is not a name, and this is the tool most likely to be pointed at the wrong list. The preview also shows each site's kind and an owned_count: unclassified sites read as owned, so an 'owned' entry in a list you built from prospects is the clearest sign the wrong ids were assembled. Ids that do not resolve are reported per-id, never as a whole-call failure. To pick the ids, list_websites with kind: "prospect" returns only sites explicitly marked disposable.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoApprove the deletions. Omit on the first call to see which domain each id resolves to; set true to delete after the user approves.
website_idsYesWebsite ids from list_websites (1 to 50). Duplicates are collapsed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +{}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: it is a soft delete (audits, reports, issues preserved; report links keep working; slots freed), errors are reported per-id rather than as whole-call failures, and the preview exposes kind plus an owned_count that misreads unclassified sites as owned. This is exactly the non-obvious operational detail annotations cannot carry.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with verb, scope, and purpose, then flows into behavior. It is long, but the density is justified by the destructive bulk operation; only the repeated emphasis on reading domains back borders on redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers return behavior (every result echoes the domain, per-id error reporting), destructive side effects, the confirm workflow, and id-selection guidance. An agent has everything needed to invoke this safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the schema already documents confirm and website_ids. The description still adds value by framing confirm as a preview/approve loop and by explaining what the preview actually surfaces (domain per id, kind, owned_count), which shapes how the parameter is used.

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 with scope ('Delete up to 50 websites in one call') and the intended scenario (cleaning up a dashboard of one-off/prospect audits). It is clearly distinguished from the single-site sibling delete_website, which it explicitly references.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context (bulk cleanup), the exact workflow ('call once without confirm... then again with confirm: true'), and names the alternative for id selection ('list_websites with kind: "prospect"'). It also instructs the agent to read domains back to the user before and after, with a stated reason.

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
Let your AI agent see the webWeb-to-screenshot MCP for Claude, Cursor and Codex. No cookie banners. Free to start.snap-render.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources