PERMANENTLY deletes an Orivox website (files + database row).
This is IRREVERSIBLE. Always confirm with the user before calling this -- do not delete based on an ambiguous request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_guid | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / project_guidAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / project_idRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "project_guid"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so excellently: it labels the operation as PERMANENT, IRREVERSIBLE, and specifies the scope (files + database row). This gives an agent exactly the risk awareness needed.
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 sentences with no filler: the first fronts the destructive scope immediately, and the second delivers the user-confirmation requirement. Everything earns its place.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the resource, scope, permanence, and user-confirmation requirement. Nothing crucial is missing for calling this tool correctly.
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 explicitly explain project_guid. However, this is a single, self-explanatory required parameter in a delete_project tool, so the meaning is reasonably inferable despite the lack of explicit semantic enrichment.
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 states a specific verb ('deletes'), the exact resource (Orivox website), and what is affected (files + database row). It clearly distinguishes this destructive action from siblings like update, build, or publish.
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?
Description is explicit about when to call: only after user confirmation, and never from an ambiguous request. It clearly communicates safety guardrails for a destructive tool.
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.