Skip to main content
Glama

Delete meeting

delete_meeting
Destructive

Permanently remove a meeting and all associated data from OpenProject. Requires confirmation; use update_meeting to cancel instead.

Instructions

Permanently delete a meeting, together with its agenda and recorded outcomes.

Use only on explicit user instruction. The meeting, its agenda items, their outcomes and its attachments all go with it, and OpenProject offers no API-side undo. If the meeting merely did not happen, update_meeting(meeting_id=..., state='cancelled') is the reversible alternative that keeps the record.

Returns a small confirmation object once OpenProject accepts the deletion.

Pitfalls. This needs the 'delete meetings' permission, so a 403 is about the account, not the id. A 404 means the id is wrong, the meeting was already deleted, or — on OpenProject before 17.4 — the meetings write API does not exist at all; the hint names all readings.

Cross-references: get_meeting to check what you are about to destroy; update_meeting(state='cancelled') for the reversible alternative; list_meetings for the id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoMust be true. Ask the user to confirm first — the API offers no undo. Calling with confirm=false returns a confirmation_required error rather than deleting anything.
meeting_idYesNumeric meeting id to delete permanently. Read it back with get_meeting first and show the user the title — meeting ids are not human-readable.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesId of the meeting, agenda item, outcome or recurring series that was deleted.
deletedYesTrue once OpenProject accepted the deletion.
messageYesHuman-readable confirmation naming what was removed.
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, etc.), the description discloses critical behavioral details: irreversibility ('no API-side undo'), cascading deletion of agenda/outcomes/attachments, permission requirements, and specific error semantics (403 vs 404, plus OpenProject version caveat). This adds substantial context beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 text is well-organized into paragraphs and bullet-like pitfalls, each sentence carrying meaningful information. It front-loads the primary purpose and irreversibility, then provides alternatives, return behavior, and error guidance without redundancy.

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?

The description is fully complete for a destructive, annotation-rich tool. It covers safety prerequisites, alternatives, error interpretation, and cross-references to check before deletion. The presence of an output schema means return value details are not needed, and the description fills all other essential context.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although the schema already covers 100% of parameters, the description enhances meaning for both: confirm is explained as mandatory to avoid accidental deletion with a clear consequence for false, and meeting_id is advised to be read back and shown to the user because ids are not human-readable. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a meeting, together with its agenda and recorded outcomes'), clarifying both the action and its scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_meeting and get_meeting by explaining what makes this tool unique.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use only on explicit user instruction') and provides a concrete reversible alternative ('update_meeting(meeting_id=..., state='cancelled')') for situations where deletion is not appropriate. Cross-references further guide selection among related meeting tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kar-thik/openproject-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server