Delete one page from the site. index.html cannot be deleted.
Links elsewhere that pointed at the removed page surface through validate_project as dead links -- fix them with apply_dom_ops.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | ||
| project_guid | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key side effect: links to the deleted page become dead links detected by validate_project and fixed via apply_dom_ops. It also notes an important restriction on index.html.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds valuable edge-case context without any filler or redundancy.
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?
This tool has few parameters and an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. It covers the main action, a caveat, and the downstream consequences. It falls slightly short on clarifying parameter value formats, which is more of a parameter semantics gap than a contextual completeness issue.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the expected format of the 'page' parameter or the semantics of 'project_guid'. It only implies that 'page' is a page from the site, leaving agents to guess whether it is a path, filename, or identifier.
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?
Provides a clear verb and resource: 'Delete one page from the site.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_asset and delete_project, though it does not explicitly contrast it with replace_page or read_page as alternatives.
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?
Gives clear context for when deletion has downstream effects and specifies an explicit limitation: index.html cannot be deleted. It routes the agent to validate_project and apply_dom_ops to handle resulting dead links, though it doesn't cover when to choose this tool over replace_page or read_page.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools pair a distinct action with a distinct resource and long descriptions make intent clear. Still, `search_domains` already provides exact-domain checks, overlapping with `check_domain`, and the `create_project` vs `create_new_site` vs `create_page` cluster takes careful reading.
The vast majority are snake_case verb_noun: list_projects, create_project, delete_page, get_preview_url, write_asset, query_database, publish_website. The only visible outlier is whoami, but it is standard enough that it does not disrupt predictability.
At 36 tools this is meaningfully heavier than the rubric's 'too many' threshold, even though the scope spans websites, backends, domains, gallery images, and databases. It makes selection harder and a sizeable portion of the surface is niche or lifecycle internal.
The core site lifecycle is well covered: project, htmlmanag, assets, preview/publish, validation, deletion, uploaded images, backend files/logs, database reading, domain search and purchase linking. Workable non-critical gaps exist, e.g. no separate project metadata rename and no direct way to delete database rows or a database outside of deleting the project.