RetailHardHat

Delete Project Task

delete_project_task

Destructive

delete a general-project task, not a site task. Supports hierarchy, assignment, status, priority and due dates; no completion timestamp or actor overrides. 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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "projectTaskId": "<projectTaskId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_project_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes
`projectTaskId`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as destructive, non-read-only, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds approval-related context, but the sentence about hierarchy, assignment, status, priority, and due dates is ambiguous for a delete operation and does not clarify cascade effects or irreversibility.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening scope statement is front-loaded and useful, but the middle sentence about supported task attributes does not clearly earn its place in a delete definition and may confuse the reader.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive delete tool with two required identifiers and no parameter descriptions, the definition is missing critical operational context such as cascade behavior, whether linked or child tasks are affected, permission requirements beyond approval caveats, and confirmation expectations. The output schema may cover return values, but deletion semantics remain under-described.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description never explains projectId or projectTaskId. It only implies that the target is a general-project task rather than a site task, leaving the required UUID parameters largely undocumented.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource, and explicitly scopes it to a general-project task rather than a site task. That distinguishes it from at least one sibling, though it does not name the alternative tool directly.

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?

It gives a clear usage boundary: use this for general-project tasks, not site tasks. It does not provide broader when-to-use guidance versus update, archive, or template-related tools, but the main scope distinction is present.

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

All RetailHardHat 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.

Resources

Need Help?