Skip to main content
Glama
cristip73

MCP Server for Asana

by cristip73

asana_delete_project_status

Remove outdated or incorrect project status updates from Asana to maintain accurate project tracking and reporting.

Instructions

Delete a project status update

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_status_gidYesThe project status GID to delete

Implementation Reference

  • The main tool handler switch case that processes the tool call, extracts the project_status_gid parameter, calls the AsanaClientWrapper's deleteProjectStatus method, and returns the JSON response.
    case "asana_delete_project_status": {
      const { project_status_gid } = args;
      const response = await asanaClient.deleteProjectStatus(project_status_gid);
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response) }],
      };
    }
  • The AsanaClientWrapper method that performs the actual Asana API deletion by calling the SDK's ProjectStatusesApi.deleteProjectStatus.
    async deleteProjectStatus(statusId: string) {
      const response = await this.projectStatuses.deleteProjectStatus(statusId);
      return response.data;
    }
  • Defines the tool's metadata including name, description, and input schema requiring 'project_status_gid'.
    export const deleteProjectStatusTool: Tool = {
      name: "asana_delete_project_status",
      description: "Delete a project status update",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          project_status_gid: {
            type: "string",
            description: "The project status GID to delete"
          }
        },
        required: ["project_status_gid"]
      }
    };
  • Includes the deleteProjectStatusTool in the exported tools array for MCP registration.
    deleteProjectStatusTool,
  • Imports the deleteProjectStatusTool from project-status-tools for use in tool-handler.
      getProjectStatusTool,
      getProjectStatusesForProjectTool,
      createProjectStatusTool,
      deleteProjectStatusTool
    } from './tools/project-status-tools.js';
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. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't mention permissions required, whether deletion is permanent/reversible, rate limits, or what happens after deletion. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion tool and front-loads the essential information immediately.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether there are side effects, what permissions are needed, or what the return value might be. The description should provide more context given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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% with the single parameter 'project_status_gid' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a project status update'), providing specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'asana_create_project_status' or 'asana_get_project_status', which would require explicit comparison for a score of 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites mentioned, no context about when deletion is appropriate, and no reference to related tools like 'asana_create_project_status' or 'asana_get_project_status' for comparison.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/cristip73/mcp-server-asana'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server