vercel-mcp-pro

delete_env_var

Delete an environment variable from a Vercel project by providing the project and variable ids.

Instructions

Delete an environment variable from a project by id.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "envId": "<envId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_env_var"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`projectId`	Yes	Project id or name.
`envId`	Yes	Environment variable id.
`teamId`	No	Team ID to scope the request. Falls back to VERCEL_TEAM_ID when omitted.
`slug`	No	Team slug to scope the request (alternative to teamId).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'delete', implying a destructive action but does not disclose permanence, auth requirements, or any side effects. Missing critical behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, clear, no fluff. Could be slightly more informative without harming conciseness, but it is appropriately sized.

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?

No output schema, and the description does not mention return values or success indication. For a simple delete tool it might be adequate, but it lacks completeness regarding what the agent can expect after calling this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats the 'by id' concept already captured in the envId parameter description.

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?

Description clearly states the action 'delete' and the resource 'environment variable from a project', distinguishing it from siblings like create_env_var, update_env_var, and get_env_var.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use indications. The description only states what it does.

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

Deploy Server