Skip to main content
Glama
evalor
by evalor

Delete Task(s)

delete_task

Permanently remove one or multiple tasks from your Dida365 project. Supports batch deletion for cleaning up unwanted tasks.

Instructions

Permanently delete one or more tasks (任务). Supports batch deletion.

⚠️ DESTRUCTIVE: This action cannot be undone! (此操作无法撤销!)

WHEN TO USE:

  • User explicitly requests to remove/delete a task (删除任务)

  • Cleaning up unwanted tasks

WHEN NOT TO USE:

  • Complete a task (完成任务) → use 'complete_task'

  • Archive a task (not supported by API)

REQUIRED (per task):

  • projectId: Project containing the task (清单ID)

  • taskId: Task to delete (任务ID)

INPUT FORMAT: { "tasks": [{ "projectId": "...", "taskId": "..." }, ...] }

⚠️ IDEMPOTENT: Deleting a non-existent task returns success. Use 'get_task' first to verify existence if needed.

BATCH BEHAVIOR: Non-atomic - some may succeed while others fail. Check summary.failed > 0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tasksYesArray of tasks to delete
Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses destructiveness (irreversible), idempotency (deleting non-existent returns success), and batch non-atomicity, meeting the full burden.

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?

Well-structured with sections and warnings, every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

While no output schema exists, the description mentions response fields like 'summary.failed' and covers batch behavior and idempotency. Minor gap on full response structure, but highly complete for a destructive batch tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description restates but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool deletes tasks with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like complete_task by specifying when not to use.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections provide clear guidance, including alternatives like complete_task and noting archive is unsupported.

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/evalor/Dida365MCP'

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