Skip to main content
Glama

Delete a task

delete_task
Destructive

Permanently removes a task, its notes, and files by task number or ID, with no undo. Use only when requested and with delete tasks permission.

Instructions

Deletes a task with its notes and files. It can’t be undone. Needs Delete tasks. Only when the person asks for it.

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": {
      "task": "<task>"
    },
    "name": "delete_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskYesThe task: its number, e.g. TASK-000123, or its id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further: it discloses the deletion is cascading (notes and files go too), irreversible, and gated on a specific permission. Knowing what collateral data is destroyed is exactly the context an agent needs before calling a destructive 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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: effect, cascade scope, irreversibility, permission, and invocation gate. No filler or restatement of the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers effect, collateral damage, irretrievability, and authorization. It stops short of stating what happens on an invalid or already-deleted task id, a minor gap given there is no output schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the single `task` parameter is already documented in the schema, including the TASK-000123 format and id alternative. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Deletes a task with its notes and files" gives a specific verb plus resource and additionally states the cascade scope, which separates it from siblings like complete_task, update_task, or assign_task. An agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.

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?

"Only when the person asks for it" is an explicit when-to-use gate, and "Needs Delete tasks" states the prerequisite permission. What is missing is naming the alternative (e.g. closing/completing a task instead of deleting) for a user who just wants a task out of the way.

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