delete_dropPermanently delete a drop owned by the authenticated account (requires an sp_ API key). The URL stops serving immediately and cannot be recovered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The drop slug (the subdomain part of its shipped.run URL). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deleted | Yes | Slug of the deleted drop |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"The drop slug (the subdomain part of its shipped.page URL)."New value: +"The drop slug (the subdomain part of its shipped.run URL)."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructive=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: deletion is permanent, the URL stops serving immediately, and recovery is impossible. This goes beyond the annotation flags and sets correct user expectations.
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?
Two tight sentences convey purpose, ownership, authentication, immediacy, and irreversibility. Every clause adds information, and the most important consequence ('Permanently delete') is front-loaded.
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?
For a single-parameter deletion tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It covers the action, prerequisites, ownership scope, and the critical irreversibility effect without unnecessary detail.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the slug parameter is already well documented as the subdomain part of the shipped.run URL. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.
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 names a specific verb ('delete'), a specific resource ('drop'), and the key scope ('owned by the authenticated account'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like restore_drop by emphasizing permanence.
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 implies when to use the tool: when you intend a permanent deletion of a drop you own, and it states the authentication requirement (sp_ API key). It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the permanence warning effectively separates it from restore-minded siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or lifecycle action: deploy_html vs deploy_files separate single-file from multi-file deploys, append_files adds to an existing drop, and claim/restore/delete/list cover different drop states. There is no meaningful overlap between tool purposes.
All nine tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, e.g. deploy_html, deploy_files, list_drops, restore_drop. The verbs clearly indicate the action and the nouns indicate the target resource.
Nine tools is well-scoped for a deployment service covering deploy, file management, lifecycle, and account/limit information. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary redundancy or overwhelming surface area.
The core drop lifecycle is covered: deploy, append files, claim, list, delete, and restore, plus account and limits context. Minor gaps exist around per-file updates/overwrites and named-drop redeployment not being exposed as an explicit tool, but agents can accomplish the main workflows.