testit-mcp-server

delete_project

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a TestIT project by its UUID so you can remove obsolete or duplicate projects from the test management platform.

Instructions

Delete 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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Project UUID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is structured. The description adds nothing beyond that: no statement about whether the deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to test runs/suites/work items, or what permissions are required. For a destructive operation, that is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient but so terse that it borders on under-specification for a destructive operation.

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?

This is the most consequential kind of tool in the sibling set—an irreversible deletion—and the description covers only the identifier. With no output schema and no mention of blast radius, authorization, or failure modes, an agent cannot anticipate consequences before invoking it.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented as a project UUID, so the description adds no format or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a one-parameter tool whose schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb ("Delete") and resource ("project") with the identifying key ("by ID"), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling deletes (delete_test_run, delete_section, etc.), but the resource noun already disambiguates.

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 this tool should be used versus updating or archiving a project, and no prerequisites or warnings about confirmation. The agent must infer all usage conditions from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server