testit-mcp-server

delete_test_plan

DestructiveIdempotent

Archives a test plan by UUID to remove it from active use without permanent deletion; restore it later or purge it to delete permanently.

Instructions

Delete (archive) a test plan. Use restore_test_plan to undo or purge_test_plan to remove it for good.

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_test_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Test plan UUID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's real contribution is the non-obvious fact that this 'delete' is actually an archive and is recoverable via restore_test_plan. That is meaningful behavior beyond the structured hints. It stops short of saying whether dependent artifacts (test runs, suites) are affected or what permissions are needed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its archive semantics, then the alternatives. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential questions: what it does, that it is reversible, and how to reverse or escalate. It omits side effects on related entities and permission requirements, which keeps it just short of complete.

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?

There is a single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('Test plan UUID'), so the schema already carries the full burden. The description adds no format, source, or validation detail for the id, which is acceptable here but earns only the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete (archive) a test plan') and immediately disambiguates the operation as a soft archive rather than a permanent removal. This cleanly separates it from purge_test_plan and restore_test_plan without requiring the agent to open any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use restore_test_plan to undo or purge_test_plan to remove it for good.' Both alternatives are named with the condition that selects each, so the when-to-use decision is fully resolved in one sentence.

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

Deploy Server