Planning System MCP Server

delete_plan

Soft-delete a plan by archiving it; the plan can be restored later.

Instructions

Soft-delete a plan by setting status='archived'. Recoverable via update_plan({status: 'active', restore: true}). Hard delete is not agent-callable — use REST + admin token if absolutely needed.

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": {
      "plan_id": "<plan_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`plan_id`	Yes
`reason`	No	Logged for audit.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.8.1Apr 29, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / plan_id / description
```
Removed value: -"Plan ID to delete"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / reason
```
Added value: +{
+  "description": "Logged for audit.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
First observedDec 29, 2025

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the soft-delete behavior and recoverability. However, it could mention potential side effects like cascading effects or permissions, but for a simple tool it is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. No redundancy or unnecessary details.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, recovery, and hard delete. Minor gap: no mention of return value or success indicator, but not essential.

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 50% (reason has a description). The description does not add meaning to plan_id beyond the tool name, nor does it explain reason further. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already handles half.

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 the action (soft-delete), the mechanism (setting status='archived'), and the resource (plan). It distinguishes the tool from hard delete, providing a specific verb and resource.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly provides recovery instructions via update_plan and warns against using this tool for hard delete, directing to REST API. It gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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