Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
devflow

devflow

by cocaxcode
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

df_project_delete

Delete a configured project by name to remove it from devflow's automated Jira, GitHub, and GitLab workflows.

Instructions

Eliminar un proyecto configurado.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "df_project_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesNombre del proyecto a eliminar

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.15

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 indicates deletion but does not explain whether the action is irreversible, what artifacts are removed, whether special permissions are required, or what response is returned. This is a meaningful gap for a destructive operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words and the action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity limits the amount of useful operational context it conveys.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter delete operation, the description plus schema are minimally adequate for invoking the tool. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits important operational context such as permanence, side effects, and preconditions, so it is not fully complete.

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%, and the single parameter 'name' is already documented as 'Nombre del proyecto a eliminar.' The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to because the schema fully explains the parameter.

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 states a specific action ('Eliminar' = delete) and resource ('proyecto configurado' = configured project), making the core purpose clear. It is implicitly distinct from sibling operations like df_project_update, df_project_list, and df_project_switch, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool, what preconditions exist, or when to prefer sibling tools such as df_project_update or df_project_list. The only usage information is implied by the verb 'Eliminar.'

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools