Skip to main content
Glama

delete_project

Remove a specific project from Dida365 task management. This action permanently deletes the project and cannot be undone.

Instructions

删除指定的项目(清单)。⚠️ 此操作不可恢复。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes要删除的项目ID

Implementation Reference

  • The core API client implementation for deleting a project.
    def delete_project(self, project_id: str) -> bool:
        """删除项目"""
        response = self.client.delete(f"/project/{project_id}")
        response.raise_for_status()
        return True
  • The MCP server handler logic that calls the DidaClient to delete a project.
    elif name == "delete_project":
        client.delete_project(args["project_id"])
        return "✅ 项目 %s 已删除。" % args["project_id"]
  • The tool registration definition for 'delete_project'.
        "name": "delete_project",
        "description": "删除指定的项目(清单)。⚠️ 此操作不可恢复。",
        "inputSchema": {
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {
                "project_id": {
                    "type": "string",
                    "description": "要删除的项目ID",
                }
            },
            "required": ["project_id"],
        },
    },
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the destructive nature ('此操作不可恢复' - this operation cannot be recovered) which is crucial for a deletion tool. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to associated tasks when a project is deleted.

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 extremely concise - just two sentences in Chinese that convey the essential information. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides the critical warning. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the minimum essential information (what it does and that it's irreversible). However, it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid project_id format, what happens to associated tasks, or what the response looks like, leaving gaps in understanding the full context of this mutation tool.

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% description coverage, with the single parameter 'project_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 action ('删除' - delete) and the resource ('指定的项目' - specified project), with additional clarification that it refers to a '清单' (list/inventory). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete_task' by specifying it operates on projects rather than tasks.

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 about when to use this tool (to delete a project) and includes a warning about irreversibility, which serves as a caution about when NOT to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like archiving or comparing with sibling tools like 'delete_task'.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Martinqi826/dida-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server