Volanea

volanea_cleanup_test_data

Destructive

Remove the test artifacts YOU created in this project — the templates, segments, workflows, webhook endpoints, and campaign drafts made through this MCP server, plus any contacts it auto-created while enrolling or tracking. It can only ever touch those: anything a human made through the dashboard or REST API is invisible to it, and resources you merely UPDATED (idempotent creates that matched an existing name) are never removed. Runs as a preview by default — call with { confirm: true } to actually delete. Use this at the end of an integration session so a production project isn't left holding your scaffolding.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "volanea_cleanup_test_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kinds`	No	Restrict cleanup to these kinds. Omit for everything this server created.
`confirm`	No	Must be true to delete. Omitted or false returns a preview of exactly what would be removed.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	Machine-readable failure code to branch on. Present only when success is false.
`data`	No	Present when success is true.
`error`	No	Human-readable failure reason. Present only when success is false.
`success`	Yes	False when the call failed; read `error` and `code` in that case.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: it guarantees the tool can only touch server-created artifacts, that dashboard/REST-created resources are invisible to it, and that idempotent creates matching an existing name are never removed. It also discloses the preview-by-default safety behavior, which is the key operational detail an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Front-loads the verb and the scope guarantee, then the safety constraints, then the recommended timing. Dense but every clause carries distinct information; nothing is filler.

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?

Covers scope, safety, confirmation semantics, and timing, and an output schema already exists to describe the preview payload, which the description correctly alludes to ('a preview of exactly what would be removed'). Nothing an agent needs to invoke this destructive tool safely is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: that omitting 'confirm' yields a preview rather than an error or a silent no-op, and that omitting 'kinds' means everything the server created. These behavioral defaults are more useful than the schema's terse field notes.

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 (remove) and a precisely scoped resource (test artifacts created by this agent through this MCP server), even enumerating the kinds involved. It is clearly separable from volanea_delete_resource because it explains that only agent-created, server-created objects are in 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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'at the end of an integration session so a production project isn't left holding your scaffolding.' It also explains the safe call pattern (default preview, confirm: true to delete). It does not name sibling alternatives such as volanea_delete_resource for targeted removals, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

All Volanea tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?