Sweeppea MCP

delete_rule

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete an official rules document from a sweepstakes. Use fetch_rules first to get the rules_token. WARNING: This action cannot be undone.

delete_rule

When to use

Permanently delete an official rules document from a sweepstakes. Use fetch_rules first to get the rules_token. WARNING: This action cannot be undone.

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)
rules_token (string, required) — The rules 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
`rules_token`	Yes	The rules token to delete (UUID format)
`sweepstakes_token`	Yes	The sweepstakes token (UUID format)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint, but the description adds crucial behavior: 'cannot be undone,' 'Always confirm with the user before calling,' and 'Explain what will be lost.' This enriches beyond structured metadata without contradiction.

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 content is structured with headings and useful warnings, but the initial paragraph is repeated verbatim in the 'When to use' section, adding redundancy. It is reasonably sized but not maximally concise.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, validation, and irreversibility. It could mention what a successful response looks like, but that is minor for a delete operation.

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 both parameters are described with UUID format in the schema. The description repeats this information rather than adding new semantic depth, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete an official rules document from a sweepstakes.' This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_rule, update_rule, and fetch_rules, and the warning about irreversibility adds important scope.

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?

The description provides clear when-to-use guidance and required pre-calls (fetch_rules, fetch_sweepstakes for name-based input). It does not explicitly mention alternatives like update_rule for edits, so it stops short of full 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 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?