remove_functionRemove the deployed Worker function from a site (and all its routes, secrets, and cron triggers). Site falls back to static-only serving. Irreversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | site slug whose function to remove |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionAdded value: +"site slug whose function to remove"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by detailing exactly what is destroyed (routes, secrets, cron triggers) and the consequence (site falls back to static-only). This provides comprehensive behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main action and then list consequences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema present, strong annotations), the description is complete. It covers the action, scope, and outcomes, leaving no ambiguity for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'slug' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool removes a deployed Worker function from a site, listing specific components that are removed (routes, secrets, cron triggers) and the resulting fallback to static-only serving. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy_function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to remove a function) and mentions irreversibility. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like deploy_function for adding a function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.