delete_projectIRREVERSIBLE — confirm with the user first. Permanently deletes a deployed project: all files, analytics, and the subdomain. Forms, Data collections and booking pages attached to it are NOT deleted — they are un-assigned and kept. This action cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | The project ID to delete |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: exact deletion scope, the un-assignment behavior for attached resources, and irreversibility. This goes well beyond the schema and annotations.
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 warning is front-loaded, and the description is compact and information-dense. Minor redundancy exists between 'IRREVERSIBLE', 'Permanently deletes', and 'This action cannot be undone,' but it does not significantly hurt clarity.
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 clear annotations, the description provides everything an agent needs: confirmation requirement, exact deletion scope, exceptions, and irreversibility. No output schema is present, but return value details are not necessary for correct invocation.
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?
The schema fully documents projectId with 100% coverage, so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description does not need to add parameter detail, though it also does not provide extra context beyond naming the target resource.
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?
States a specific, irreversible delete operation on the project resource and enumerates exactly what is destroyed (files, analytics, subdomain). This clearly differentiates it from sibling delete tools like delete_form, delete_data_collection, and delete_booking_page.
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?
Explicitly instructs the agent to confirm with the user first and warns that the action is irreversible. It also clarifies that attached forms, data collections, and booking pages are un-assigned rather than deleted, which helps the agent decide between delete_project and the more targeted sibling delete tools.
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 are clearly separated by resource and action, and the descriptions are detailed enough to avoid most misselection. The main ambiguity is between deploy_files and deploy_website (both deploy a site, one multi-file and one single-file), and get_project versus get_project_files versus list_projects require careful reading.
Every tool follows a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, delete_*, update_*, upload_*, assign_to_project, unassign_from_project, configure_chatbot. There are no camelCase names, vague verbs, or mixed conventions.
At 29 tools, this exceeds the comfortable MCP surface and crosses into the 'too many' range. The breadth is somewhat justified by the number of subdomains (projects, files, forms, data, bookings, chatbot, media), but several getters and listers could be consolidated without losing capability.
The tool set covers a full website build lifecycle: account checks, content modeling, media upload, deploy, assignment, chatbot configuration, and post-deploy file edits. Minor gaps remain: booking pages and form settings are intentionally read-only via the MCP, and there is no chatbot deletion or teardown tool.