Planning System MCP Server

delete_node

Archive a node and its children to remove them from active plans, while allowing recovery by updating status.

Instructions

Soft-delete a node by setting status='archived'. Cascades to children by default. Recoverable via update_task({status: 'not_started'}).

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": {
      "node_id": "<node_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`node_id`	Yes
`plan_id`	No	Auto-resolved if omitted.
`reason`	No
`cascade_children`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.8.1Apr 29, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / cascade_children

Added value: +{
+  "default": true,
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / node_id / description
```
Removed value: -"Node ID to delete"
```

changedInput schema / properties / plan_id / description

Previous value: -"Plan ID"New value: +"Auto-resolved if omitted."

addedInput schema / properties / reason
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "plan_id",
-  "node_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "node_id"
+]

First observedDec 29, 2025

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses key behaviors: soft-delete (not permanent), cascading default, recoverability. No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Could mention authorization or side effects, but covers core traits.

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?

Three efficient sentences, each adding value. Front-loaded with primary action. No redundant text.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Covers core purpose and recovery, but lacks description of return value and does not fully document all parameters. With low schema coverage and no output schema, description could be more thorough.

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 coverage is 25% (only plan_id described). Description adds context for cascade_children and implies node_id, but does not explain reason parameter. Partial compensation for low schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states 'soft-delete a node', specifying the verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like delete_plan (deletes plan) and update_node (updates node).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit context: cascades to children by default and is recoverable. Gives recovery method via update_task. Doesn't state when not to use but offers enough guidance for an agent.

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