Skip to main content
Glama

Delete task project

well_delete_task_project
Destructive

Remove the link between a task and a project of the current workspace (soft delete). The task and the project stay; only the link goes.

Use this tool when the user says a task no longer belongs to a project, or asks to take a task out of a project. Find the task_id and project_id first with the task list and well_list_projects. To change which project is the task's primary one, link the new one with well_create_task_project and is_primary: true. When that project is already linked, remove its link with this tool first, then link it again with is_primary: true.

REQUIRED: task_id, project_id.

A task that is not linked to the project is refused: the call fails and nothing is written.

Returns { success: true, task_id, project_id } on success, or { success: false, error } on failure.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYesThe task to unlink, from the workspace's task list.
project_idYesThe project to unlink it from, from well_list_projects.
workspace_idNoTarget workspace. Omit when the token authorizes one workspace. Required when it authorizes several — a write lands in exactly one workspace and this call would not say which.
conversation_idNoThe conversation id returned by the previous Well result, in its meta under well/conversation_id, in its structuredContent, or in its JSON text block. Pass it back on every call in the same conversation, including a call a card makes, so the chosen workspace and the earlier answers still apply. It decides the conversation on its own: nothing the host states about the session replaces it. Omit it only on the first call of a conversation.
idempotency_keyNoOptional client-supplied key. A retried write with the same key returns the original result instead of re-applying the operation.
workspace_scopeNoRestrict this call to the family: the token's primary workspace plus the company workspaces under it that you are a member of. Unrelated authorized workspaces drop out of the read; row reads merge across the family, while a per-workspace figure still reports exactly one workspace.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNo
errorNo
successYes
task_idNo
project_idNo
reply_linesNo
conversation_idNoThe conversation this result belongs to. Pass it back as the conversation_id argument on every later Well call in the same conversation.
near_candidatesNo
newly_connectedNoTools that connected to this workspace since the last result and that no session was told about yet, oldest first. Present only when at least one tool is new. The connected-line rule says when to tell an entry; when it does, one line per entry, in the person's language: "<name> is connected.". Never fold several entries into one sentence. Each entry comes back once, on one result only: never repeat its line later.
conversation_id_noteNoPresent only when the server opened a fresh lane, stating that no choice recorded earlier was read.
conversation_id_sourceNoWhere the conversation id came from: the host's own request meta, the caller's argument, or a fresh lane the server opened.
near_candidates_truncatedNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / code
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / near_candidates
      Added value: +{
      +  "items": {
      +    "additionalProperties": false,
      +    "properties": {
      +      "company_id": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "name": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      }
      +    },
      +    "required": [
      +      "company_id",
      +      "name"
      +    ],
      +    "type": "object"
      +  },
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / near_candidates_truncated
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / reply_lines
      Added value: +{
      +  "items": {
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial scope: the destructive effect is limited to the link, not the task or project. It also discloses failure semantics ('A task that is not linked to the project is refused: the call fails and nothing is written') and the return shape. It does not discuss permissions or workspace-scoping write implications, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the soft-delete definition, then usage, then required params, then return values, in short scannable paragraphs. The one edge-case paragraph about re-linking is dense but earns its place by preventing a common wrong call.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, yet it still summarizes them. Combined with soft-delete scope, refusal behavior, and the primary-project workflow, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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%, so all six parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the UUID patterns and the workspace_id/conversation_id operational nuances. The description only reinforces that task_id and project_id are REQUIRED and where to find them — accurate but largely redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Remove the link between a task and a project') and immediately disambiguates scope with '(soft delete). The task and the project stay; only the link goes.' This clearly differentiates it from the sibling well_delete_task and well_delete_project, which would delete the entities themselves.

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 ('when the user says a task no longer belongs to a project'), and names the alternative path for changing the primary project (well_create_task_project with is_primary: true), including the edge case where the project is already linked — remove first, then re-link. Nothing is left to inference.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources