Frostbyte

task_delete_subtask

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently remove one subtask (checklist item) from a task; there is no undo. Use it for a subtask you added that turned out wrong or redundant, or when the user asks; never remove one a person wrote unless they asked. To mark a step finished use task_edit_subtask with action "check", and to reword one use "set-text". The rest of the checklist is kept, even if it ends up empty. The removal is audited and appears live. Returns a confirmation, or an error if the subtask isn't on this task.

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>",
      "taskId": "<taskId>",
      "subtaskId": "<subtaskId>",
      "context": "<context>"
    },
    "name": "task_delete_subtask"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`taskId`	Yes	The task ID or number (FB-360 or 360)
`context`	Yes	Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."
`projectId`	Yes	The project ID
`subtaskId`	Yes	The subtask (checklist item) ID, as listed by get_task or task_spawn_subtasks

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 3, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / subtaskId / description

Previous value: -"The subtask (checklist item) id"New value: +"The subtask (checklist item) ID, as listed by get_task or task_spawn_subtasks"

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds material context beyond them: irreversibility ('no undo'), collateral scope ('the rest of the checklist is kept, even if it ends up empty'), auditability and live propagation, and the error condition when the subtask is absent. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail structured fields cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the irreversible action and followed by routing guidance; every sentence carries distinct information. It is slightly dense across five clauses, but nothing is redundant enough to remove.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, side effects on the remaining checklist, audit/liveness behavior, return value, and error case. An agent has everything needed to decide and call safely.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including the subtaskId source and the unusual 'context' constraints. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently remove one subtask (checklist item) from a task') and immediately distinguishes scope from sibling mutations like delete_task and task_edit_subtask. An agent can identify the exact operation without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names when to use it ('a subtask you added that turned out wrong or redundant, or when the user asks'), an exclusion ('never remove one a person wrote unless they asked'), and the correct alternatives for adjacent intents ('task_edit_subtask with action "check"' / '"set-text"'). This is textbook when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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

All Frostbyte tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?