Delete a project role by name. Returns 409 if any members still use it; requires role:manage permission.
删除角色。需 role:manage 权限。仍有成员使用时返回 409。 DELETE /api/projects/{id}/roles/{roleName} 项目由当前 API 密钥自动确定，无需传 projectId。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even though annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the required scope (role:manage), the 409 failure mode when the role is still in use, and that the project is inferred from the API key so no projectId is needed.
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?
Four short, front-loaded sentences: action, permission, failure mode, endpoint plus the explicit note that projectId is not needed. Nothing is redundant.
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?
With no output schema, the description covers the operation, authorization requirement, conflict behavior, and path binding well. Only the roleName value format is left unaddressed, which is minor for this destructive single-param tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for a single nested path param, so the description has to compensate. It shows roleName's position in the URL template and clarifies that projectId is intentionally absent, but never states roleName's expected format or source.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (删除角色 / delete a role) and pins the exact endpoint and path shape, making it trivially distinguishable from patch_roles_role_name and the other delete_* siblings.
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?
Provides clear preconditions for use: the caller needs role:manage permission, and it will fail with 409 if members still reference the role. It does not explicitly route against alternatives such as patch_roles_role_name, so it stops just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.