rybbit_delete_goalPermanently delete a Rybbit Analytics goal by providing siteId and goalId. This action cannot be undone.
Permanently delete a goal. This action cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goalId | Yes | Numeric goal ID to delete | |
| siteId | Yes | Site ID (numeric ID or domain identifier) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "number"
+ ]
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.5.1v0.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description reinforces this with 'Permanently delete' and 'cannot be undone', but adds nothing about authorization requirements, behavior on a nonexistent goalId, or cascading effects on related goal/session records.
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?
Two short sentences with the destructive warning front-loaded in the first clause. Nothing is padded and nothing competes for attention.
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 two-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it omits error behavior for an invalid or already-deleted goalId and any scoping/permission context. It is minimum viable rather than complete.
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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (goalId, siteId) carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mentions neither parameter and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource ('delete a goal'), which cleanly separates it from sibling mutators like rybbit_delete_site and rybbit_delete_funnel. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings or with rybbit_update_goal; it relies on the tool name for differentiation.
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?
There is a warning that the action is permanent, but no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g. rybbit_update_goal to modify rather than remove), no prerequisites, and no note about what happens to associated goal session data. The agent gets a warning but no routing logic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.