Remove a project from mxmcp and optionally delete its workspace files to clean up inactive or unwanted STM32CubeMX project data.
Forget a project; optionally delete its workspace files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Project id | |
| remove_files | No | Delete <workspace>/projects/<id> |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that files may optionally be deleted, which is useful, but it does not explain irreversibility, permissions required, or what 'forget' means operationally for the project registry.
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?
A single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately qualifies the optional destructive behavior. No wasted words.
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?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It should clarify irreversibility, whether confirmation is required, and what happens to the project entry after forgetting.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds slight semantic value by reinforcing that file deletion is optional via remove_files, but does not go beyond the schema details.
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 gives a specific verb ('Forget') and resource ('a project'), plus an optional file-deletion behavior. It is clear enough to distinguish from project_close, but 'forget' is slightly ambiguous compared to a more explicit 'delete project from list' phrasing.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like project_close, project_save, or project_list. It does not state prerequisites or whether the project must be closed first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.