Deletes a project and its vaults. Requires X-API-Key (existing users can generate an API key in the web app). If headers aren't supported, pass api_key in arguments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | Optional API key for clients that cannot set X-API-Key headers. | |
| project_id | Yes | Project id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses the destructive scope (project plus vaults) and the authentication requirement, both of which go beyond the raw schema. It does not mention irreversibility or response behavior, but for a simple delete operation the key side effects are communicated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler; the action is front-loaded and the auth guidance is relevant and compact. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one required parameter, it covers what is deleted, the required API key, and the header fallback path. It omits irreversibility and return-value details, but nothing required to construct a valid call is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no substantial parameter meaning beyond what the schema says about api_key and project_id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Deletes a project and its vaults', which is a specific verb and resource and clearly identifies the cascade scope. This distinguishes it from delete_account and delete-code-vault, so an agent can immediately select the right deletion tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a clear prerequisite (X-API-Key) and an explicit fallback for clients that cannot set headers, which is practical invocation guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for deleting only a vault, but the cascade statement implies the boundary between this and delete-code-vault.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct by resource and action, but the three get-code-vault-* variants (summary, results, reports) plus get_vault create a cluster of similar-sounding retrieval tools. The use of both 'vault' and 'code-vault' in names increases the chance of misselection, though descriptions do clarify the differences.
Naming convention is inconsistent: snake_case (create_account, get_vault, list_projects) is mixed with kebab-case (create-code-vault, get-code-vault-summary, reanalyze-code-vault). The same concept is referred to as 'vault' and 'code-vault' across tool names, breaking predictability.
At 16 tools, the server is slightly over the ideal 3-15 range but still reasonable for the domain covering accounts, projects, vaults, and analysis retrieval. The count is justified by the distinct resources and operations, though a few vault-related tools could potentially be consolidated.
The server provides solid lifecycle coverage: account create/get/delete, project CRUD (minus update), vault create/read/delete/reanalyze, plus API key rotation. Minor gaps exist, such as no update methods for accounts or projects, but the core workflows are well-supported without dead ends.
