mcp-seo-audit

delete_site

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a site from Google Search Console properties by providing its URL, clearing it from your verified property list.

Instructions

Remove a site from your Search Console properties.

Args:
    site_url: The URL of the site to remove

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "site_url": "<site_url>"
    },
    "name": "delete_site"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_url`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Apr 17, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond those hints: it does not say whether removal is permanent or reversible, whether verification/ownership is required, or what happens to associated data, which are the questions a destructive tool actually raises.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short lines with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler; the Args block is a compact, conventional way to document the parameter. It earns its length, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a destructive, open-world mutation the description omits auth/verification requirements and irreversibility, which an agent needs before invoking it. The definition is not complete enough for the operation's risk profile.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% — site_url has only a title and type, with no format expectations. The description's 'The URL of the site to remove' only rephrases the parameter name and leaves open whether a full URL with protocol, a domain, or a scoped property string is expected.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Remove a site from your Search Console properties'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from add_site and delete_sitemap without opening either schema. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the site must already be verified in the account), and no exclusions relative to the sibling tools. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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

Deploy Server