Deletes a project by its ID using the Project Service API, enabling removal of obsolete or unused projects from VCF Automation.
Deletes a project Deletes a project by id. DELETE /project-service/api/projects/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The id of the project. (path) | |
| apiVersion | No | The version of the API in yyyy-MM-dd format. For versioning information refer to /project-service/api/about. | 2019-01-15 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does 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 known. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of irreversible data loss, cascading deletion of deployments/resources tied to the project, or required permissions. With annotations carrying the load, this is thin but not contradictory.
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 same fact is stated three times (title line, 'Deletes a project by id', and the raw DELETE endpoint). There is repetition rather than information, and no front-loaded guidance an agent could act on.
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, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description should say at minimum what gets destroyed and whether the deletion cascades. It covers none of this, leaving the agent dependent on annotations alone.
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% and both parameters are documented inline, including the path nature of 'id'. 'By id' in the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 states a clear verb and resource (deletes a project by id), but it merely restates the tool name and the endpoint already in the title. It offers no differentiation from the sibling tool iaas_delete_project, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the text alone.
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 instead of iaas_delete_project or project_modify_project, and no prerequisites or warnings. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.