railway-mcp

project_delete

[API] Delete a Railway project and all its resources

Instructions

[API] Delete a Railway project and all its resources

⚡️ Best for: ✓ Removing unused projects ✓ Cleaning up test projects

⚠️ Not for: × Temporary project deactivation × Service-level cleanup (use service_delete)

→ Prerequisites: project_list, project_info

→ Alternatives: service_delete

→ Related: project_create

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>"
    },
    "name": "project_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes	ID of the project to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 18, 2025

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description indicates destructiveness by stating it deletes the project and all resources. It clarifies permanent deletion by noting 'not for temporary deactivation.' However, it does not explicitly state irreversibility or potential consequences like cascading deletions.

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?

The description is compact, uses clear section headers and bullet points with emojis, and every sentence adds value. No redundant information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple destructive tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, alternatives, and prerequisites comprehensively. Could mention irreversibility explicitly, but overall it is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter (projectId) already described. The description adds no additional parameter detail but provides context by listing prerequisites and related tools, helping the agent understand how to obtain the projectId.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete a Railway project and all its resources') with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting exclusions (temporary deactivation, service-level cleanup).

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?

Provides explicit best-for cases (removing unused, cleaning up test), not-for cases (temporary deactivation, service-level cleanup), alternative tool (service_delete), and prerequisites (project_list, project_info).

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