Skip to main content
Glama

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893

delete_project

DestructiveIdempotent

Soft-delete a project (the harder option) — frees a slot and hides it.

Stops any in-flight machine, then flips the project to `deleted`: it
disappears from `list_projects`, drops out of the project cap, and the loop
stops dispatching it. The row is retained for audit but there is NO in-tool
restore (unlike `archive_project`) — re-import the repo to reconnect it as a
fresh project. Idempotent. Owner-scoped; a project not in the workspace 404s.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description goes well beyond: it specifies the 'soft-delete' nature (row retained for audit), that it stops in-flight machines, and that there's no in-tool restore. It also states the scope restriction (owner-scoped, 404 if not in workspace). This adds substantial behavioral context without any contradiction to annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured: a punchy one-liner summary, then a detailed explanation of side effects and caveats. Every sentence adds value (effects, restore nuance, idempotency, scoping), with no fluff or repetition. It's efficient and front-loaded.

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?

For a destructive action with side effects, the description covers all critical aspects: the action itself, what gets stopped, how it affects project listing and cap, idempotency, scope, and the lack of restore path. With an output schema present and clear annotations, this is fully sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With zero schema coverage, the description needed to explain the project_id parameter, but the parameter name is self-explanatory. The description provides context on how the parameter's value is used (the project that gets deleted, and its scope semantics), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. It doesn't explicitly restate that project_id is the identifier, but the surrounding text makes it implicit, so a small deduction is warranted.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Soft-delete a project') and immediately contrasts with the sibling 'archive_project' by calling itself 'the harder option.' It clearly states the action and distinguishes it from alternatives, meeting the highest bar for purpose clarity.

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?

It explicitly names an alternative ('unlike `archive_project`') and explains when to use this over that — when you want to free a slot and permanently remove from active use with no restore. It also describes the exact consequences (stops machine, disappears from list, drops from cap) and notes the ownership scope and 404 behavior, giving the agent full context for decision-making.

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

All Keelen toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource and action duo, even within clusters like request handling or security reviews. The get_ vs run_ pairs are clearly separated, and descriptions explicitly contrast confusing alternatives such as archive_project vs delete_project.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set overwhelmingly follows verb_noun snake_case (submit_request, list_projects, resolve_escalation). The one visible deviation is project_status, which breaks the get_/pattern, and signup is a single-word verb instead of sign_up.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and spans auth, billing, project lifecycle, roadmap, escalations, product documents, and multiple review types. Most tools earn their place, but the surface is too large for one server and would be more coherent split into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

The domain coverage is broad: full project lifecycle, request intake/refinement, roadmap manipulation, escalation handling, product doc read/write, and security/legal review flows. Minor gaps exist, most notably no dedicated task-listing or task-update tool, but agents can work around these via project_status and list_escalations.

Resources