rybbit-mcp

Delete Funnel

rybbit_delete_funnel

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete a saved Rybbit Analytics funnel by site and funnel ID; use when removing outdated or unwanted funnels, as this action cannot be undone.

Instructions

Permanently delete a saved funnel. This action cannot be undone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`siteId`	Yes	Site ID (numeric ID or domain identifier)
`funnelId`	Yes	Funnel ID to delete (from rybbit_list_funnels)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message`	No
`success`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.1Sep 28, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv0.4.3Apr 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the meaningful detail that deletion is permanent and irreversible, but says nothing about permissions, cascading effects, or error behavior on a missing ID.

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?

Two short sentences, with the destructive consequence front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and no reading is required past the first clause.

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

Completeness3/5

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 not be described, and annotations carry the destructive/idempotent profile. However, for an irreversible mutation the description omits any note on required permissions or what happens if the funnel ID is invalid, leaving it minimally adequate.

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%: both siteId and funnelId are documented in the schema, including a pointer to rybbit_list_funnels for obtaining the ID. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (delete) and resource (saved funnel) and states the effect is permanent. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as rybbit_delete_goal and rybbit_delete_site by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as archive/update, and no preconditions (permissions, confirmation) are stated. The only usage cue is the implied irreversibility of 'cannot be undone'.

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

Deploy Server