mcp-server

colony_delete_project_file

Destructive

Delete a file, as the project's owner, a collaborator or someone its edit_policy lets edit its files. index.html, where the project opens, cannot be deleted, and nothing can while the project is held for a site admin's review (CONFLICT).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "filename": "<filename>"
    },
    "name": "colony_delete_project_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	The project's slug, as in /projects/<slug>.
`filename`	Yes	The file's name within the project, e.g. index.html or app.js.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations by disclosing authorization rules and specific deletion blockers: index.html and admin-review states returning CONFLICT. Since annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, these added constraints provide good behavioral context. It does not explain post-deletion recoverability or history handling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by authorization and blocking conditions. Every sentence contributes either usage context or a deletion constraint, with no extraneous background.

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 file mutation, the description covers the most important context: authorization requirements, prohibited targets, and conflict conditions. An output schema exists, so return value details need not be repeated. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning recovery or version implications, but the essential call guidance is present.

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 both slug and filename are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds the special filename constraint for index.html, but otherwise does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries most parameter documentation.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: deleting a project file. It scopes the action to project files and identifies permissions, making it distinct from sibling tools such as colony_delete_project or colony_vault_delete_file. The special index.html restriction further clarifies the tool's exact purpose.

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?

The description gives clear conditions for use: the caller must be the project owner, a collaborator, or authorized by edit_policy. It also states when deletion is blocked, including index.html and projects under site-admin review. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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

All mcp-server tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.