mcp-testops

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_launch

Deletes the launch identified by launch_id and all its associated results via the Allure TestOps API, returning HTTP 204 on success.

Instructions

Delete a launch together with all its results; the API answers 204.

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": {
      "launch_id": "<launch_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_launch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`launch_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.5Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and usefully discloses that deletion cascades to all results and that the API returns 204. It does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, or confirmation behavior, but it does surface the key destructive side effect.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The cascade warning and 204 response are packed efficiently into one line.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple, has only one parameter, and has an output schema, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. However, for a destructive operation with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description should do more to explain the launch_id input and usage boundaries.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage for the single launch_id parameter is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining what the parameter identifies or how to obtain it. Instead, it only says 'a launch' and adds no meaning beyond the bare schema property.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a launch') plus scope ('together with all its results'), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this destructive operation from siblings such as close_launch or reopen_launch, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use delete_launch versus close_launch, reopen_launch, or other launch-management tools. The description also omits prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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