Skip to main content
Glama
geoffwhittington

SD Elements MCP Server

delete_project

Remove a project from the SD Elements MCP Server by specifying its project ID, ensuring clean and efficient project management within the security development lifecycle platform.

Instructions

Delete a project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesThe ID of the project to delete

Implementation Reference

  • The delete_project tool handler, registered with @mcp.tool(). Calls the API client to delete the project by ID and returns JSON result.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def delete_project(ctx: Context, project_id: int) -> str:
        """Delete a project. Use when user says 'delete', 'remove', 'archive', or wants to permanently remove a project. Do NOT use update_project for archiving."""
        global api_client
        if api_client is None:
            api_client = init_api_client()
        result = api_client.delete_project(project_id)
        return json.dumps(result, indent=2)
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a project' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it fails to disclose critical traits: whether deletion is permanent, what permissions are required, if it affects related data, error conditions, or confirmation steps. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a severe gap that could lead to unsafe usage.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'Delete a project', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While under-specified, it earns a high score for conciseness as every word directly states the tool's action without fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive mutation with no annotations, 1 parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, usage context, or output expectations. For a delete operation in a server with multiple project tools, more detail is needed to ensure safe and correct invocation, making this inadequate despite the simple parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'project_id' fully documented in the schema (ID of the project to delete, integer, minimum 1). The description adds no meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter usage, format, or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't compensate with additional context like where to find project IDs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Delete a project' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'update_project' or 'get_project' beyond the obvious verb difference, nor does it clarify what 'project' means in this context (e.g., software project, business project). While the verb 'delete' is clear, the description lacks detail about scope or resource type.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., project must exist, user must have permissions), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete if dependencies exist), or sibling tools like 'update_project' or 'list_projects' for alternatives. This leaves the agent with no context for decision-making in a server with multiple project-related tools.

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

Related 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/geoffwhittington/sde-mcp'

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