Skip to main content
Glama

Sweeppea MCP

by com.sweeppea.mcp

delete_sweepstakes

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete a sweepstakes and all associated data including participants, statistics, and automations. Use fetch_sweepstakes first to get the sweepstakes_token. CRITICAL: This is a DESTRUCTIVE operation that cannot be undone. ALWAYS ask for explicit user confirmation before deleting, showing the sweepstakes name. NEVER delete multiple sweepstakes in batch or loops. If user requests bulk deletion, refuse and ask them to delete one at a time after reviewing each.

delete_sweepstakes

When to use

Permanently delete a sweepstakes and all associated data including participants, statistics, and automations. Use fetch_sweepstakes first to get the sweepstakes_token. CRITICAL: This is a DESTRUCTIVE operation that cannot be undone. ALWAYS ask for explicit user confirmation before deleting, showing the sweepstakes name. NEVER delete multiple sweepstakes in batch or loops. If user requests bulk deletion, refuse and ask them to delete one at a time after reviewing each.

Pre-calls required

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

Parameters to validate before calling

  • sweepstakes_token (string, required) — The unique identifier (token) of the sweepstakes to delete

Notes

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

  • IRREVERSIBLE — destroys ALL associated data (participants, rules, winners, statistics)

  • ALWAYS require explicit user confirmation. Explain exactly what will be lost.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sweepstakes_tokenYesThe unique identifier (token) of the sweepstakes to delete

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint:true annotation, the description emphasizes irreversibility ('DESTRUCTIVE operation that cannot be undone'), lists what data is lost, and mandates explicit user confirmation. This provides critical behavioral context that annotations alone don't convey, and there is 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is structured with headings but is repetitive; the same critical warning appears in the main description, 'When to use,' and 'Notes' sections. While front-loaded and organized, the redundancy makes it longer than necessary, though each repeated warning reinforces safety.

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 destructive tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers everything: purpose, pre-calls, parameter validation, safety constraints, and the exact data affected. It is fully self-contained and leaves no ambiguity about usage.

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?

The schema already fully describes sweepstakes_token with 100% coverage. The description adds value by advising that fetch_sweepstakes should be used if the user provides a name instead of a token, explaining how to obtain the parameter value. This supplementary guidance goes beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool 'Permanently delete a sweepstakes and all associated data including participants, statistics, and automations.' This specifies the verb (delete), resource (sweepstakes), and scope (associated data), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pause_sweepstakes or update_sweepstakes.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use fetch_sweepstakes first to get the token, always confirm with user, never delete in batch/loops, and refuse bulk deletion. This clearly defines when to use the tool and the necessary pre-calls and constraints, exceeding simple context.

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

All Sweeppea MCP 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

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