FlagForge MCP Server

delete_challenge

Delete a CTF challenge and all associated evidence, flags, and artifacts in a single cascading operation. Admin-only action ensures complete cleanup without leftovers.

Instructions

Delete a challenge and its evidence/flags/artifacts (admin only, cascades)

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": {
      "challenge_id": "<challenge_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_challenge"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`challenge_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses two important behaviors: the operation is restricted to admins and it cascades to evidence, flags, and artifacts. This is strong transparency for a destructive operation, though it does not mention whether the action is reversible.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and then packs two critical constraints (admin-only, cascading deletion) into four words. There is no filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a one-parameter destructive delete tool with no output schema, this description covers all essential operational context: what is deleted, the permission requirement, and the cascading behavior. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it is missing.

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?

The schema has one self-explanatory parameter, challenge_id, with a UUID format and pattern. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the parameter's purpose is obvious from the tool action and schema, slightly mitigating the 0% schema description 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?

Identifies the exact action (Delete), the target resource (a challenge), and the scope of deletion (its evidence/flags/artifacts). This clearly distinguishes it from update_challenge and set_challenge_status, which modify rather than destroy.

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?

States when this tool is appropriate: an admin deleting a challenge and its associated data. It also implies non-admins and users who only want to modify or release a challenge should use alternatives, though it does not name them explicitly.

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