openproject-mcp

Delete project

op_delete_project

Delete a project permanently. Requires admin permission; deletion processed asynchronously.

Instructions

Delete a project. Destructive; requires admin permission. The deletion is processed asynchronously by OpenProject.

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": {
      "idOrIdentifier": "<idOrIdentifier>"
    },
    "name": "op_delete_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`idOrIdentifier`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is destructive, requires admin permission, and processes asynchronously. This adds meaningful context beyond a simple delete. Lack of details on failure modes or completion is minor.

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 two sentences, highly concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on how to provide the idOrIdentifier (e.g., numeric ID or string identifier) and what the response looks like. The agent is left guessing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the parameter idOrIdentifier, and the description does not elaborate on its format, meaning, or usage. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'Delete a project,' specifying the action (delete) and resource (project). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like op_delete_work_package and op_delete_relation, which operate on different resources.

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 mentions 'requires admin permission' and 'asynchronous processing,' which provides some context but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like op_update_project. Usage is implied but not explicitly differentiated.

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