Delete a project state by supplying the state UUID and project UUID. This removes the state from the workspace, cleaning up project workflows.
Delete a state
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the state to delete | |
| project_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the project containing the state |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5-8seneca.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a state' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't specify consequences (e.g., what happens to associated data), permissions required, error conditions, or confirmation behavior. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded and directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as what a 'state' is, deletion consequences, success/error responses, or any behavioral nuances. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these gaps in a tool that performs irreversible actions.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (project_id and state_id as UUID identifiers). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting. No additional value is provided.
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 'Delete a state' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (state), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_state' or 'create_state' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't specify what a 'state' represents in this context (e.g., workflow state, project state), which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing state), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete default states), or sibling tools like 'update_state' or 'list_states' that might be relevant alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.