mcp

Delete a project entity

deleteEntity

Destructive

Delete an entity identified by name. Bootify applies its consistency rules to dependent project data.

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>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "deleteEntity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Name of the entity to delete
`projectId`	Yes	The project ID returned by startProject

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`changes`	Yes	Only settings whose values actually changed, including automatic effects, using final stored values in MCP format. Nested objects contain changed properties only. Empty when no settings changed; values that are no longer exposed are omitted.
`projectId`	Yes	The project ID returned by startProject
`affectedAreas`	Yes	Object lists changed directly or by automatic effects. Lists are not returned; use getProject with these details when needed. Empty for no list changes.
`userProjectChanged`	No	Present only once when the project appears to have been changed by the user since the preceding MCP call within the last two hours

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 7, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / affectedAreas / items / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "APP_MODULES",
-  "ENUMS",
-  "DATA_OBJECTS",
-  "ENTITIES",
-  "RELATIONS",
-  "INDEXES",
-  "REST_CONTROLLERS",
-  "FRONTEND_CONTROLLERS",
-  "SECURITY_CONFIGS"
-]New value: +[
+  "APP_MODULES",
+  "ENUMS",
+  "DATA_OBJECTS",
+  "ENTITIES",
+  "RELATIONS",
+  "INDEXES",
+  "BREAKPOINTS",
+  "REST_CONTROLLERS",
+  "FRONTEND_CONTROLLERS",
+  "SECURITY_CONFIGS"
+]

First observedSep 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that Bootify applies consistency rules to dependent project data, warning the agent that deletion cascades or affects related objects.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the action and identifier front-loaded and the cascade warning following. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the destructive profile. The cascade note fills the main behavioral gap; only sibling differentiation is missing.

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 coverage is 100% with two fully documented parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'identified by name' merely restates the schema's name parameter and adds no format or constraint detail.

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 (delete) and resource (entity), plus the identifying mechanism (by name). However, it does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling delete tools (deleteDataObject, deleteEnum, deleteAppModule, etc.), so an agent must infer the split from naming conventions alone.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus the sibling delete/update tools, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether the entity must exist, or ordering relative to dependent objects). The agent gets no routing guidance.

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

All mcp 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?