rybbit_delete_funnelPermanently delete a saved funnel by providing its site ID and funnel ID. This action cannot be undone; find the funnel ID first with list funnels.
Permanently delete a saved funnel. This cannot be undone. Use rybbit_list_funnels to find funnel IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteId | Yes | Site ID (numeric ID or domain identifier) | |
| funnelId | Yes | Funnel ID to delete. Use rybbit_list_funnels to find IDs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the key behavioral detail that deletion is permanent and irreversible, which is useful beyond the structured annotations. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, front-loads the permanent deletion, and includes the essential warning and prerequisite without any filler. Every word contributes value.
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 simple destructive delete operation with two well-documented parameters, the description gives the agent enough to proceed: what it does, that it is irreversible, and how to find the required ID. No output schema exists, but return value expectations are not critical here.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond restating that rybbit_list_funnels should be used to find funnel IDs, which is already present in the schema, so it matches the baseline without adding new meaning.
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?
Description uses a specific verb (permanently delete) and resource (saved funnel), and explicitly warns the action cannot be undone. This clearly distinguishes it from other tools such as rybbit_update_funnel or rybbit_delete_site.
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 instructs the agent to use rybbit_list_funnels to obtain funnel IDs, providing a clear prerequisite. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool, but the destructive nature is made obvious by the wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.