delete_projectRemoves an existing Planka project by its ID, along with its associated boards and data. Use this action to delete projects that are no longer needed.
Delete a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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' indicates a destructive operation but does not explain permanence, cascading effects on child resources like lists/cards, permissions required, or whether deletion can be undone. This is a minimal disclosure that adds little beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and front-loaded, which is concise. However, it is under-specified and essentially restates the tool name, providing little additional value. It is not bloated, but it is too minimal to be considered well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the description lacks important context for a destructive operation: no mention of side effects on associated tasks/lists, no prerequisites, no irreversibility warnings, and no usage scenarios. It is incomplete for a tool that permanently removes a project.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'id' parameter. While the parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, the description offers no commentary on what ID should be supplied or where to find it. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a project' states a clear verb and resource, matching the tool name and title. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling delete tools by naming the project resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with other delete operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_project or any other delete tools. No context is provided about prerequisites, conditions, or situations where this should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.