@argosvix/mcp-server

delete_project

Archive a project to soft-delete it, preserving past observations and requiring new records to be routed elsewhere. The default project cannot be deleted.

Instructions

Soft-delete a project (DELETE /v1/projects/:id; sets archived_at for a logical delete). The default project cannot be deleted (400, keeping accounts.default_project_id referentially consistent). After archiving, calls / alerts remain as-is (past observations are kept); route new records to another project.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes	Id of the project to delete (via list_projects)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.30.0-alpha.14Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains the soft-delete mechanism (`archived_at`), the restriction on the default project, and the impact on related data (calls/alerts remain). This is transparent for a deletion tool.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key action and endpoint, then covers important details efficiently.

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 lack of output schema, the description explains the consequences of deletion (soft-delete, data retention, next steps). It is mostly complete but could mention undoability or more detailed consequences.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has one parameter with a description that matches the tool's description. The tool-level description adds behavioral context about the parameter (e.g., the default project cannot be deleted), providing extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool performs a soft-delete on a project, specifies the HTTP endpoint, and distinguishes itself from other delete tools by focusing on projects. The caveat about the default project being undeletable adds specificity.

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?

The description implicitly indicates when to use the tool (to delete a project) and provides important context about limitations (default project cannot be deleted) and post-deletion behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or suggest alternatives.

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

Deploy Server