Skip to main content
Glama

Delete Project Budget Template

delete_project_budget_template
Destructive

Delete a project_budget template and its normal dependent records. MCP approval requirements are configurable by the organization administrator; business workflow approvals always apply.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_project_budget_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that dependent records are cascaded and that approval requirements apply, but 'normal dependent records' is vague and irreversibility is never stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its cascade effect. The approval sentence is somewhat boilerplate but relevant to a destructive operation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a destructive cascade delete, the description leaves the meaning of 'normal dependent records' and the irreversibility of the operation unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single 'id' parameter, so the description carries the burden of explaining it. It says nothing about what the id refers to, its format, or how to obtain it, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a project_budget template') and adds scope ('its normal dependent records'). It is clearly a delete operation on a budget template, but the description never distinguishes it from close siblings like delete_budget_template or delete_project_budget_template_item.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool versus delete_budget_template or delete_project_budget_template_item, and no prerequisites are stated. The approval sentence describes policy, not usage conditions or exclusions.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources