Skip to main content
Glama
TAgents

Planning System MCP Server

by TAgents

delete_node

Remove a node and its child elements from a hierarchical plan to maintain project structure and eliminate unnecessary components.

Instructions

Delete a node and all its children

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
plan_idYesPlan ID
node_idYesNode ID to delete

Implementation Reference

  • src/tools.js:224-235 (registration)
    Registration of the 'delete_node' tool within the ListToolsRequestHandler response, defining its name, description, and input schema for MCP tool discovery.
    {
      name: "delete_node",
      description: "Delete a node and all its children",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          plan_id: { type: "string", description: "Plan ID" },
          node_id: { type: "string", description: "Node ID to delete" }
        },
        required: ["plan_id", "node_id"]
      }
    },
  • The execution handler for the 'delete_node' tool within the CallToolRequestHandler. Extracts parameters, calls the API client to delete the node, and formats a success response.
    if (name === "delete_node") {
      const { plan_id, node_id } = args;
      await apiClient.nodes.deleteNode(plan_id, node_id);
      return formatResponse({
        success: true,
        message: `Node ${node_id} and its children deleted successfully`
      });
    }
  • Helper method in the API client that wraps the axios DELETE request to remove the specified node from the plan.
    deleteNode: async (planId, nodeId) => {
      await apiClient.delete(`/plans/${planId}/nodes/${nodeId}`);
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a node and all its children, implying a destructive, irreversible operation. However, it lacks critical details: whether deletion requires specific permissions, if it's atomic or cascading, potential side effects (e.g., impact on related artifacts or logs), error conditions, or confirmation prompts. For a destructive tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Delete') and resource, making it immediately understandable. There is no wasted language or redundancy, earning a top score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects: what happens post-deletion (e.g., confirmation message, error handling), how it interacts with sibling tools (e.g., 'get_node_ancestry' for verification), or safety considerations. For a high-stakes deletion tool, this leaves the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('plan_id' and 'node_id') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain format constraints, relationships between parameters, or example values. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a node and all its children'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'delete_plan' by focusing on nodes rather than entire plans. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other node-related tools like 'update_node' or 'move_node' beyond the obvious destructive nature.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the node must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete root nodes), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'delete_plan' (for entire plans) or 'update_node' (for modifications). The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/TAgents/agent-planner-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server