Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HacknPlan MCP Server

HacknPlan MCP Server

by Lint111
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

delete_projects

Delete one or more game development projects by providing an array of project IDs. Returns a unified response with deletion counts and per-item errors.

Instructions

Delete one or more projects (array-based, DESTRUCTIVE). Single-item and batch calls use the same interface. Returns unified response with items array, counts, and per-item errors.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "delete_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYesArray of projects to delete (1-100 items)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv7.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Labels the action as DESTRUCTIVE and describes the response structure, but with no annotations and no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or permission requirements 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose and key traits.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Handles the lack of output schema by describing the response, but could add context on when to delete vs close or other constraints for a more complete picture.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds limited parameter-specific meaning beyond stating the array-based nature and destructive flag; minimally enhances what the schema already provides.

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 deletes projects, specifies it is array-based and destructive, and distinguishes from sibling tools like close_projects or batch_delete_work_items.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Mentions single-item and batch use share the same interface, giving implied usage context, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like close_projects or recover_deleted_items.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools