Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BunkerWeb MCP

BunkerWeb MCP

Official
by bunkerity
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

delete_service

Destructive

Permanently deletes a BunkerWeb service and all its settings from the database; this action is irreversible. Wizard-managed services are refused, so use a draft update to take a service offline instead.

Instructions

Delete a service and all its settings, not reversible; wizard-managed services are refused. Use update_service with is_draft=true to take one offline instead. Saved to the database; the scheduler applies it later; this tool cannot confirm it is live.

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": {
      "service": "<service>"
    },
    "name": "delete_service"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serviceYesService ID (its first SERVER_NAME) to delete, with all its settings

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / service / description
      Previous value: -"Service identifier to delete"New value: +"Service ID (its first SERVER_NAME) to delete, with all its settings"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / service / description
      Added value: +"Service identifier to delete"
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it states the deletion is not reversible, that wizard-managed services will be rejected, and that the change is only persisted to the database and applied later by the scheduler, so the tool cannot confirm the service is actually gone. That eventual-consistency caveat is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Three tight clauses, front-loaded with the destructive action and its irreversibility before the alternative and the async caveat. The semicolon-chained phrasing is dense and slightly run-on, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

For a single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is destroyed, what is refused, the non-destructive alternative, and the fact that success cannot be verified immediately. No meaningful gap remains.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents that it takes a service ID (first SERVER_NAME) and that all settings go with it. The description never mentions the parameter directly, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Delete a service') plus scope ('and all its settings'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling update_service by naming that alternative explicitly. An agent can tell it apart from delete_instances, delete_configs, or uninstall_plugin without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit exclusion ('wizard-managed services are refused') and a concrete alternative path ('use update_service with is_draft=true to take one offline instead'), so the when-not-to-use and what-to-do-instead are both spelled out.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools