Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Taskmaster

Taskmaster

by eyaltoledano
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

delete_tag

Remove a specified tag and its associated tasks from the Task Master MCP server, ensuring clean task management. Input includes tag name and project directory.

Instructions

Delete an existing tag and all its tasks

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>",
      "projectRoot": "<projectRoot>"
    },
    "name": "delete_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNoPath to the tasks file (default: tasks/tasks.json)
nameYesName of the tag to delete
projectRootYesThe directory of the project. Must be an absolute path.
yesNoSkip confirmation prompts (default: true for MCP)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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. While it mentions the destructive nature ('Delete... and all its tasks'), it doesn't specify whether this requires confirmation (though the 'yes' parameter hints at this), what happens to tasks after deletion, or any error conditions. For a destructive tool, this is insufficient.

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 that front-loads the core action and consequence. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear destructive intent.

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, error handling, or the full impact of deleting 'all its tasks' (e.g., whether subtasks or dependencies are affected). Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'name' and the tag being deleted or the purpose of 'projectRoot'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Delete') and the target resource ('an existing tag and all its tasks'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'remove_tag' (which doesn't exist) or 'rename_tag'. It explicitly mentions the cascading effect on tasks, which is a key differentiator.

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 like 'remove_task' or 'clear_subtasks', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It lacks context about when this destructive operation is appropriate versus other tag-related operations.

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

Related Tools