Delete Graph Project
delete_graph_projectDestructive
Delete a graph project (removes GitHub repo, K8s deployments, Neo4j database, and credentials)
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Project ID (UUID) |
RationalBloks
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 the description adds valuable detail about what gets destroyed: 'removes GitHub repo, K8s deployments, Neo4j database, and credentials.' This enriches the safety profile and aligns with the annotations, with no contradiction.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action and uses a parenthetical to enumerate key effects. It is concise and every word adds value.
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 simple destructive tool with one parameter, the description fully covers what the tool does and what resources are affected. There is no output schema, but the return value is not critical for a delete operation, and the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for project_id with a description ('Project ID (UUID)'). The tool description does not add additional parameter context, but the schema already fully documents the parameter, so a baseline score of 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Delete a graph project' and specifies the exact resources removed (GitHub repo, K8s deployments, Neo4j database, and credentials). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_project (likely for non-graph projects) and delete_graph_node/delete_graph_relationship.
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 provides clear context that this is for graph projects specifically, which implicitly differentiates it from delete_project. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.
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.
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly differentiated by domain (project vs graph_project) and action (create, get, list, delete). The main ambiguity is get_project vs get_project_info, which both claim to return detailed project information. Otherwise tool boundaries are clear.
Naming Consistency4/5
The server follows a strong verb_noun convention, with parallel naming for graph and non-graph tools (create_project/create_graph_project, deploy_staging/deploy_graph_staging). Minor deviations include bulk_create_graph_nodes and fulltext_search_graph, but patterns remain predictable.
Tool Count2/5
48 tools is a heavy surface, even when accounting for the two parallel product domains (relational and graph). Many tools are near-duplicates across domains, and the count exceeds the 25-tool threshold that feels manageable. It would benefit from consolidation or sub-servers.
Completeness4/5
Both project types have full life-cycle coverage: create, schema management, deployment, rollback, and deletion, plus graph data operations including bulk, search, and traversal. Minor gaps exist, such as no update_graph_relationship and the redundant get_project/get_project_info pair, but agents can accomplish core workflows.