typst_delete_projectPermanently delete an entire Typst project after requiring the exact project name as a safety confirmation.
Permanently delete a whole project. Only on explicit user request. confirm_name must equal the project's exact name as a safety check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Project ID from typst_list_projects, e.g. 'pAbC123dEf456gHi789jKl' | |
| confirm_name | Yes | Exact current name of the project |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations provide the 'destructiveHint', the description adds critical behavioral context regarding the required safety behavior of the function, specifically that 'confirm_name must equal the project's exact name as a safety check.'
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The definition is brief, uses two highly informative sentences, and front-loads the core action, ensuring no unnecessary words are used.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a highly sensitive and destructive operation, the description is perfectly complete. It covers permanence, required checks, and intent constraints, leaving no ambiguity for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Even with 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant semantic weight to the 'confirm_name' parameter by explaining that it is a required safety check using the project's exact current name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The purpose is extremely clear: 'Permanently delete a whole project.' This strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like typst_create_project or typst_update_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a crucial usage constraint: it should only be used 'on explicit user request,' which guides the AI agent's intent filtering before invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.