aapanel-mcp

Delete a website

site_delete

Destructive

Delete a website by ID and domain after running the safety check; show what will be lost, since the panel recycle bin may not protect all resources.

Instructions

Delete a site. Run site_delete_check first and show the user what would be lost. The panel keeps a recycle bin for some resources, but do not rely on it.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "webname": "<webname>"
    },
    "name": "site_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Website id from site_list.
`webname`	Yes	Primary domain of the site, used for confirmation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1-alpha.0Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the recycle bin exists for only 'some resources' and must not be relied on, which tells the agent how irreversible this actually is. It stops short of naming auth/permission requirements.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, each load-bearing: the action, the mandatory pre-check with its UX obligation, and the recovery caveat. The verb is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety hints, nothing an agent needs is missing: the action, the required prior step, and the non-guaranteed recovery are all stated. No output schema is needed since deletion returns no meaningful payload.

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 description coverage is 100% — 'id' is sourced from site_list and 'webname' is the confirmation domain, both documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching semantics beyond that, so 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 site') and immediately names the sibling tool (site_delete_check) that belongs to this operation's workflow, so an agent can distinguish it from site_delete_check, site_stop, or db_delete in the sibling list.

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 prerequisite ordering ('Run site_delete_check first') plus the user-facing condition ('show the user what would be lost'), which is exactly the when-to-use guidance a destructive tool needs. Nothing is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server