Skip to main content
Glama

Delete project

delete_project
Destructive

Permanently delete a project and all its subprojects, work packages, comments, attachments, time entries, versions, wiki pages, and memberships. Requires explicit confirmation; irreversible and runs asynchronously.

Instructions

Schedule the permanent deletion of a project and everything inside it.

Use only on an explicit, specific instruction. Deletion CASCADES: every subproject, work package, comment, attachment, time entry, version, wiki page and membership of this project goes with it, and OpenProject offers no API-side undo. If the goal is only to get the project out of the way, update_project(active=false) archives it instead — reversible, and it preserves the data.

Deletion is ASYNCHRONOUS upstream: OpenProject accepts the request and runs it as a background job. This tool therefore returns {scheduled: true, job_id, message}, never a claim that the project is already gone — for a large project the data disappears over minutes and get_project may still answer during that window.

Pitfalls: deleting normally requires admin rights (403 otherwise). A 404 means the id or identifier is wrong, or the project was already deleted. Because the work runs in the background, a later failure inside the job is not visible here; confirm with get_project (it should eventually 404) rather than assuming success.

Cross-references: get_project to check what you are about to destroy; list_projects(parent_id=...) to see the subprojects that would go with it; update_project(active=false) for the reversible alternative.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoMust be true. Ask the user to confirm first: this is irreversible and cascades. Calling with confirm=false returns a confirmation_required error and deletes nothing.
id_or_identifierYesNumeric project id or URL identifier of the project to destroy. Read it back with get_project first and show the user the name — an identifier typo can point at a different project.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe project id or identifier the deletion was asked for.
job_idNoBackground job id, when the instance reported one; null otherwise. OpenProject exposes it at /api/v3/job_statuses/{id}.
messageYesWhat was scheduled, in plain language.
scheduledYesTrue once OpenProject accepted the request. Deletion runs as a background job, so the project can still be readable for a while afterwards.
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial context: cascading deletion of all sub-objects, asynchronous background execution, the scheduled-return contract, admin rights requirement, 404 semantics, and the possibility of invisible background failures. This goes far beyond the annotations.

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?

Though long, the description is tightly structured with clear sections: primary action, usage warning, cascade effect, alternative, async behavior, pitfalls, and cross-references. Every sentence provides actionable information, and the front-loaded summary ensures the core purpose is immediately visible.

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, asynchronous, cascading deletion tool, the description covers all essential aspects: what gets deleted, how to verify, error conditions, failure visibility, and cross-references to related tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still covers the scheduling aspect.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces the schema by emphasizing the confirm requirement and advising to read back the project before passing id_or_identifier, adding practical guidance that helps avoid typos. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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+resource: 'Schedule the permanent deletion of a project and everything inside it.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_work_package and update_project by emphasizing the cascading, destructive scope.

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 states when to use ('Use only on an explicit, specific instruction') and provides a concrete reversible alternative: update_project(active=false) for archiving. Also mentions prerequisites (admin rights) and what to do in error cases, giving clear situational guidance.

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