Skip to main content
Glama

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

delete_project

Destructive

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. Deleting ALSO permanently purges the project's stored
review artifacts. The row is retained for audit and re-importing the repo
restores that deleted row in place (unlike `archive_project` there is no
in-tool restore), but the purged artifacts are gone for good and the stopped
workers' process state cannot be recreated. A replay on a deleted project
changes no row; the call is not idempotent end to end. Owner-scoped; a
project not in the workspace 404s.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations: it discloses permanent purge of review artifacts, irrecoverable worker state, stopping in-flight machines, dropping out of project cap, list visibility changes, replay behavior, non-idempotency, and owner-scoping with 404s. This is exactly the behavioral depth needed for a destructive operation.

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 long but every sentence adds necessary operational detail. It is front-loaded with the core meaning, then covers side effects, restore semantics, idempotency, and scoping without redundancy.

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, non-idempotent tool with nuanced side effects, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is destroyed, what is retained, behavior on replay, alternative tool, and failure case. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the parameter-semantics burden. It compensates by stating that the project must be owner-scoped and that a project not in the workspace 404s, which tells the agent what values are valid. The single project_id parameter is otherwise self-evident from the tool name.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Soft-delete a project' and immediately states the core effects (frees a slot, hides it). It clearly distinguishes this tool from archive_project by contrasting restore behavior, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

The description gives clear decision-relevant context by naming archive_project as the alternative and explaining the key difference: delete has no in-tool restore while archive_project does. It does not phrase an explicit 'use this when...' instruction, but the contrast makes the appropriate use case inferable.

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
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