Sweeppea MCP

delete_participant

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete a participant from a sweepstakes. WARNING: This action cannot be undone. Use get_participant first to verify the participant details before deleting.

delete_participant

When to use

Permanently delete a participant from a sweepstakes. WARNING: This action cannot be undone. Use get_participant first to verify the participant details before deleting.

Pre-calls required

fetch_sweepstakes if the user gave you a sweepstakes name instead of a token

Parameters to validate before calling

sweepstakes_token (string, required) — The sweepstakes token (UUID format)
participant_token (string, required) — The participant token to delete (UUID format)

Notes

DESTRUCTIVE — IRREVERSIBLE. Always confirm with the user before calling. Explain what will be lost.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`participant_token`	Yes	The participant token to delete (UUID format)
`sweepstakes_token`	Yes	The sweepstakes token (UUID format)

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint, but the description goes further by emphasizing irreversibility, requiring user confirmation, and explaining what will be lost. It also mentions using get_participant before deletion, which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is well-organized with sections, but the first sentence is repeated almost verbatim in the 'When to use' section, creating minor redundancy. Overall, it is succinct and front-loaded with the warning.

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?

For a simple two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: pre-call requirements, parameter validation notes, and a clear warning about confirmation and irreversibility. It is complete for an agent to safely invoke.

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 descriptions in the input schema already cover both parameters. The description repeats the parameter details but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without further value.

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 explicitly states 'Permanently delete a participant from a sweepstakes', which is a specific verb+resource pair that clearly distinguishes this from sibling delete_* tools. It also warns that the action cannot be undone, adding precision.

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?

Provides clear context with a 'When to use' section and lists a required pre-call (fetch_sweepstakes) for converting a sweepstakes name to a token. It also instructs to use get_participant first for verification, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or mention when not to use it.

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

All Sweeppea MCP tools Inspect

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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern (fetch_* for lists, get_* for single items, create/update/delete for writes), making them distinguishable. A few near-overlaps exist (fetch_billing_transactions vs fetch_wallet_transactions, draw_winners vs schedule_drawing) but the descriptions clarify the boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case verb_noun, with fetch_ for list operations and get_ for single-item retrieval. Some verb variation (add_participant, count_participants, draw_winners, schedule_drawing) deviates from the dominant create/fetch/update/delete pattern but remains predictable and readable.

Tool Count1/5

With 83 tools, this is far beyond a well-scoped server (typically 3-15, with 25+ considered too many). Even though the platform has broad functionality, the sheer number of tools creates significant agent confusion and selection overhead.

Completeness4/5

The sweepstakes domain is thoroughly covered: lifecycle management, participants, groups, rules, drawings, winners, calendar, notes, todos, tickets, surveys, invoices, billing, files, and entry settings. A few minor gaps exist (e.g., no general participant field update, no archive action) but the surface is remarkably complete for its scope.

Resources

Need Help?