Delete a repository from a SemaphoreUI project by specifying the project ID and repository ID, permanently removing it from the system.
Delete a repository.
Args: project_id: ID of the project repository_id: ID of the repository to delete
Returns: Deletion result
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | ||
| repository_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral details such as irreversibility, cascading effects, required permissions, or idempotency. The tool is a delete operation, but critical behavioral traits are entirely missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but under-specified. While conciseness is valued, the lack of essential details (behavior, parameters, usage) makes it insufficient. It reads as a bare minimum placeholder rather than a purposeful summary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature and the presence of an output schema, the description should explain return values, side effects, and prerequisites. The vague 'Returns: Deletion result' and absence of parameter explanations make it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description merely lists parameter names (project_id, repository_id) without any explanation of their meaning, format, or constraints beyond the schema titles. This adds no value over the schema itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and resource 'repository', which aligns with the tool's name. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, update, or list repositories, but offers no additional context or nuance beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_project or delete_schedule, nor does it mention any prerequisites or consequences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.