Laravel Forge MCP Server (Extended)

delete_daemon

Remove a daemon process from a Laravel Forge server by specifying the server and daemon IDs.

Instructions

Delete a daemon

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": {
      "serverId": "<serverId>",
      "daemonId": "<daemonId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_daemon"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`daemonId`	Yes	The ID of the daemon
`serverId`	Yes	The ID of the server

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. 'Delete a daemon' implies a destructive action but offers no details on irreversibility, cascading effects, or authorization requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified for a delete operation. It is front-loaded but could benefit from additional structure or context.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover return behavior, permissions, and side effects. It fails to provide completeness needed for an agent to safely invoke the 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (serverId, daemonId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Delete a daemon' clearly states the verb (Delete) and resource (daemon), distinguishing it from sibling tools like restart_daemon or create_daemon. However, it lacks any additional context about what deletion means in this system.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 (e.g., restart_daemon), no prerequisites, and no scenarios where deletion would be inappropriate.

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