Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dida365 MCP Server

Dida365 MCP Server

by Martinqi826
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

delete_task

Remove a task permanently from a Dida365 project using its task ID and project ID. This operation cannot be undone.

Instructions

删除指定任务。⚠️ 此操作不可恢复。需要提供 task_id 和 project_id。

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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>",
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYes任务ID
project_idYes项目ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is irreversible (⚠️ 此操作不可恢复), which is a key behavioral trait beyond the schema. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, effects on related data (e.g., subtasks), or error scenarios.

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: three key pieces of information (action, irreversibility, required params) in two short sentences. No filler or redundant content.

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?

For a simple deletion tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it does, that it's irreversible, and which parameters are needed. It could be improved by mentioning return behavior or failure modes, but it is largely complete.

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 descriptions already cover both parameters (task_id and project_id) with 100% coverage. The description merely repeats that they are required, adding no new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already informs the agent.

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?

Description clearly states 'delete the specified task' with a specific verb and resource. It uses a warning icon and explicitly mentions irreversibility, which distinguishes it from siblings like complete_task or update_task that do not delete.

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?

The description includes a warning that the operation is irreversible, implying it should be used with caution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as complete_task (to mark as done) or update_task (to modify). No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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