OpenProject CE MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete project

delete_project

Destructive

Schedules permanent deletion of a project and all its contents, including subprojects, work packages, and attachments. Use only after explicit confirmation; archival is the reversible alternative.

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No	Must 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_identifier`	Yes	Numeric 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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`job_id`	No
`message`	Yes
`scheduled`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed10 schema fields changedv0.4.0Oct 24, 2026

removedOutput schema / description

Removed value: -"Outcome of ``delete_project`` — a *scheduled* deletion, never a finished one."

removedOutput schema / properties / id / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "integer"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-]

removedOutput schema / properties / id / description

Removed value: -"The project id or identifier the deletion was asked for."

addedOutput schema / properties / id / type

Added value: +[
+  "integer",
+  "string"
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / job_id / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

removedOutput schema / properties / job_id / default
```
Removed value: -null
```

removedOutput schema / properties / job_id / description

Removed value: -"Background job id, when the instance reported one; null otherwise. OpenProject exposes it at /api/v3/job_statuses/{id}."

addedOutput schema / properties / job_id / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / properties / message / description

Removed value: -"What was scheduled, in plain language."

removedOutput schema / properties / scheduled / description

Removed value: -"True once OpenProject accepted the request. Deletion runs as a background job, so the project can still be readable for a while afterwards."

First observedv0.1.0Aug 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructive annotations, it discloses the cascade of everything destroyed, lack of API-side undo, asynchronous background execution, return shape, admin-rights requirement, and how to verify eventual completion. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot 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?

Despite its length, the description is front-loaded and organized into distinct, useful parts: core action, usage restriction, cascade warning, async behavior, pitfalls, and cross-references. Every paragraph earns its place for a high-risk destructive operation.

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?

With annotations, a complete input schema, and an output schema, the remaining burden is behavioral and operational clarity. The description supplies the cascade, async caveat, permissions, error meanings, and verification path, making it complete for correct agent use.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have detailed schema descriptions covering confirmation and ID/identifier risks. The tool description reinforces safe usage but does not add parameter mechanics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: permanent deletion of a project and everything inside it. It distinguishes this from the reversible archive alternative, `update_project(active=false)`, and from read-only preparation tools such as `get_project`.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use only on an explicit, specific instruction') and names the safer alternative with its condition. It also points to `get_project` and `list_projects(parent_id=...)` for pre-deletion checks, leaving little ambiguity for an agent choosing among siblings.

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

Deploy Server