Skip to main content
Glama
davidorex

Project Handoffs MCP Server

by davidorex

delete_project

Remove a project and all associated data from the Project Handoffs MCP Server to manage workflow organization and maintain clean project tracking.

Instructions

Delete a project and all its data

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYesProject identifier

Implementation Reference

  • The `deleteProject` method in the `ProjectManager` class implements the core deletion logic: loads project metadata, removes the project entry, saves the updated metadata, and deletes the associated project data file.
    async deleteProject(projectId: string): Promise<void> {
      const projects = await this.loadMetadata();
      const projectIndex = projects.findIndex(p => p.id === projectId);
      
      if (projectIndex === -1) {
        throw new ProjectError('Project not found', projectId);
      }
    
      // Remove project metadata
      projects.splice(projectIndex, 1);
      await this.saveMetadata(projects);
    
      // Delete project data file
      try {
        await fs.unlink(path.join(BASE_STORAGE_DIR, `${projectId}.json`));
      } catch (error) {
        console.error(`Failed to delete project data file: ${error}`);
      }
    }
  • Input schema definition for the `delete_project` tool, specifying the required `projectId` parameter.
    inputSchema: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {
        projectId: { type: "string", description: "Project identifier" }
      },
      required: ["projectId"]
    }
  • src/index.ts:311-321 (registration)
    Registration of the `delete_project` tool in the `ListToolsRequestSchema` handler, providing name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: "delete_project",
      description: "Delete a project and all its data",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          projectId: { type: "string", description: "Project identifier" }
        },
        required: ["projectId"]
      }
    },
  • src/index.ts:439-446 (registration)
    Tool call dispatcher in the `CallToolRequestSchema` handler that invokes the `deleteProject` method and returns success response.
    case "delete_project":
      await projectManager.deleteProject(args.projectId as string);
      return {
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: "Project deleted successfully"
        }]
      };
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing critical behavioral traits. It doesn't clarify if deletion is permanent, what 'all its data' entails, error conditions, or authentication needs, leaving significant gaps 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core action and scope efficiently. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on consequences, return values, error handling, or permissions, leaving the agent under-informed about critical aspects of invoking this tool safely and effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'projectId' documented as 'Project identifier'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3, as the schema already provides adequate parameter information.

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 resource ('a project and all its data'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'create_project' beyond the obvious action difference, lacking specific scope or nuance.

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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It doesn't mention if this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, or should be used over other deletion methods, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.

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/davidorex/project-handoffs'

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