EasyPanel MCP Server

by dannymaaz

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Hybrid

delete_service

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a service from EasyPanel permanently using its service ID. This action cannot be undone.

Instructions

Delete a service from EasyPanel. This is destructive and cannot be undone.

Args: service_id: Service ID

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_id": "<service_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_service"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`service_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces this with 'cannot be undone', adding explicit irreversibility context. This goes slightly beyond the structured hint without contradicting it.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the key destructive warning. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the input schema, but the overall structure is clean and free of fluff.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter delete operation with output schema present and destructive/idempotent annotations provided, the description covers the critical context: it is destructive, irreversible, and identifies the required service. Minor gaps exist around what happens to associated resources, but these are not essential for a correct call.

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%, so the description needed to compensate, but the Args section merely restates the parameter name and 'Service ID', which duplicates the schema's own title. It adds no guidance on where to find the ID or any format requirements.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a service from EasyPanel'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_network and delete_project. The destructive nature is also noted.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description states the operation and warns that it is destructive and irreversible, implying it should only be used when permanent removal is intended. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as stop_service or update_service, or state prerequisites.

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