Skip to main content
Glama

Delete meeting outcome

delete_meeting_outcome
Destructive

Permanently delete a mistaken meeting outcome from an in-progress meeting's minutes. Requires explicit confirmation; use update_meeting_outcome to correct text instead.

Instructions

Permanently delete a recorded outcome from a running meeting's minutes.

Use only on explicit user instruction, for an outcome recorded by mistake or against the wrong item. If the text is merely wrong, update_meeting_outcome corrects it and keeps the record.

Returns a small confirmation object once OpenProject accepts the deletion.

Pitfalls. The outcome timing rule applies to deletion too: it only works while the meeting state is exactly 'in_progress' — a closed meeting's minutes are frozen, and the delete answers a validation error, not a 403. This needs the 'manage outcomes' permission. A 404 means the id is wrong, the outcome is already gone — or, on OpenProject before 17.6, that there is no outcomes API at all.

Cross-references: get_meeting to check which outcome the id points at; update_meeting_outcome for the reversible fix.

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.
outcome_idYesNumeric outcome id to delete, from get_meeting's agenda_items[].outcomes. Check its text there first — 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?

The description reveals many behavioral details beyond annotations: permission requirement, meeting state constraint (in_progress only), validation error vs 403, 404 meanings including OpenProject version nuance, confirmation behavior with confirm=false, and permanent no-undo nature. These enrich the safety profile indicated by destructiveHint.

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 well-structured and concise, front-loading the core action, then usage, return value, pitfalls, and cross-references. Every sentence provides essential information without fluff, and formatting (paragraphs and bullets) aids readability.

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 destructive tool, the description covers all necessary context: prerequisites (permission, meeting state), exact error semantics, confirmation requirement, and retrieval of the id. With an output schema present, the description needn't detail the return object, making it fully complete.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds crucial contextual meaning: confirm must be true because the API offers no undo, and outcome_id should come from get_meeting after checking the text. It explains error responses tied to parameters, surpassing 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a recorded outcome from a running meeting's minutes.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like update_meeting_outcome by emphasizing irreversible deletion versus correction.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use only on explicit user instruction, for an outcome recorded by mistake or against the wrong item.' It also names the alternative for wrong text and cross-references get_meeting for verification, leaving no ambiguity about when to use.

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