mcp

Delete a frontend controller

deleteFrontendController

Destructive

Available with Bootify Professional. Delete a custom frontend controller by name. Entity-generated controllers are returned by the matching getProject details option with generated=true and must be changed through their entity options.

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": "deleteFrontendController"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Current name of the frontend controller
`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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond that: the Professional tier requirement and the constraint that only custom (non-entity-generated) controllers are deletable. It does not discuss reversibility or confirmation, but that gap is minor given the annotations.

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?

Three sentences with the access gate front-loaded and no filler. The final sentence is somewhat dense but fully earns its place by preventing misuse on generated controllers.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a two-param destructive delete, the description covers the access requirement and the scope constraint adequately; only edge-case error behavior is left unstated, which is acceptable.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates 'by name', adding no format, pattern, or resolution semantics beyond the structured field. Baseline 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+resource ('Delete a custom frontend controller by name') and implicitly differentiates from sibling addFrontendController/updateFrontendController. It also carves out scope by noting entity-generated controllers are handled elsewhere, so the agent can tell exactly what this tool operates on.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use gate ('Available with Bootify Professional') and a when-not condition: entity-generated controllers (generated=true) must be changed through their entity options instead. It stops short of naming the exact sibling tool to use for those cases, but the routing guidance is clear.

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?