Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ChatCut

by io.chatcut
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

delete_project

Destructive

Soft-delete a ChatCut project the signed-in user owns — the same delete the editor dashboard performs. The project disappears from the dashboard and list_projects and its edits are blocked, but its data is retained: restore_project(projectId) undoes this.

Requires an explicit projectId — destructive actions never default to the currently targeted project. If you delete the project this session was targeting, call list_projects and target_project (or create_project) before further edits.

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": "delete_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYesProject for this call (full ID or unambiguous prefix). Explicit-timeline calls never change the target of later calls; legacy project selection applies otherwise.
timelineIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the crucial softening detail that this is a soft delete whose data is retained and is undone by restore_project. It also discloses visible side effects: the project vanishes from the dashboard and list_projects, and edits on it are blocked.

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 core behavior and the reversibility fact, then a second paragraph of operational guardrails; both paragraphs carry distinct information. Slightly wordy but no sentence is filler, and the two-paragraph split aids scanning.

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?

For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers reversibility, side effects, prerequisite targeting, and post-delete recovery. The remaining gap is the undocumented timelineId parameter and whether timelines/assets inside the project are affected, but the delete semantics themselves are complete.

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 50%, with projectId described in-schema (including the ID-or-prefix form) and timelineId undocumented in both places. The description reinforces that projectId is mandatory and never inferred from session state, which is meaningful beyond the schema, but it says nothing about what timelineId does on a delete call.

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 ('Soft-delete a ChatCut project') plus a scope qualifier ('the signed-in user owns') and equates it to a known operation ('the same delete the editor dashboard performs'). The reversible counterpart restore_project is named, so an agent can distinguish this from restore_project and duplicate_project without opening a 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 requires a non-defaulted projectId ('destructive actions never default to the currently targeted project') and prescribes recovery steps ('call list_projects and target_project (or create_project) before further edits') when the targeted project is the one deleted. It names the undo path via restore_project, so the when-and-what-next is fully spelled out.

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

All ChatCut toolsInspect
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