Remove a project from the codebase index to free memory and keep the knowledge graph current.
Delete a project from the index
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.4Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.10.0v0.9.0v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'from the index' scoping, which clarifies that deletion is limited to the index rather than the underlying project, but it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or permissions. Given that annotations carry the main behavioral burden, a 3 is appropriate.
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 entire description is a single front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and object. No unnecessary words or redundant information; it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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 destructive one-parameter tool, the description states the core operation but leaves out practical details such as the expected format of the project parameter and the exact consequences of deletion. However, the annotation set (destructive, idempotent) partially compensates, so the description is minimally adequate but not fully complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of parameter meaning, but it merely repeats the parameter name ('project') without explaining what value it should take (e.g., ID, name, path) or any constraints. This is tautological and provides no semantic value beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific action verb 'Delete' and names the exact resource and scope ('a project from the index'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_projects, search_graph, or get_architecture.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or side conditions. Usage is only implicitly derived from the purpose, but nothing tells an agent when deletion is appropriate or how it differs from other index management tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.