rybbit-mcp

Delete Site

rybbit_delete_site

Destructive

Delete a site and its replay data permanently from Rybbit Analytics. Find the site ID using rybbit_list_sites or rybbit_get_site_id.

Instructions

Delete a site from Rybbit. This permanently removes the site and its replay data. Use rybbit_list_sites or rybbit_get_site_id to find site IDs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`siteId`	Yes	Site ID (numeric ID or domain identifier)

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"
+}

First observedv0.5.2Apr 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context beyond that: the deletion is permanent and cascades to replay data, telling the agent exactly what is destroyed.

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, front-loaded with the action and impact, with the ID-lookup pointer last. No filler.

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 destructive single-parameter tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the one thing the structured fields do not: the permanence and data-loss scope. Only auth/confirmation requirements are left unstated.

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%, so the single siteId parameter (numeric ID or domain identifier) is already fully documented. The description only points to sibling tools for finding the ID, which is useful routing but 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.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Delete a site from Rybbit" is a specific verb + resource, and the follow-up sentence sharpens the scope by naming what is removed (the site and its replay data). It is trivially distinguishable from sibling mutators like rybbit_delete_goal or rybbit_delete_funnel.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a clear prerequisite/context: use rybbit_list_sites or rybbit_get_site_id to obtain the site ID before calling. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative deletion path, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server