Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
google-cloud-console-mcp

google-cloud-console-mcp

by kutleloove
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Delete Artifact Registry repository

ar_delete_repository

Delete an Artifact Registry repository and all packages within it. Use to clean up unused repositories and free up resources.

Instructions

Deletes a repository and all packages/versions inside it.

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": {
      "location": "<location>",
      "repository": "<repository>"
    },
    "name": "ar_delete_repository"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
locationYesRegion, e.g. "us-central1", or "us" for a multi-region
projectIdNoGCP project id; defaults to GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT env var
repositoryYesArtifact Registry repository id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the destructive scope ('all packages/versions inside it'), which is meaningful transparency beyond the name. However, it omits that this is irreversible, whether auth/permissions are required, and what happens if the repository doesn't exist or is not empty. Relative to a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is partial.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and immediately qualifies the scope. No redundant or filler content; every word earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a destructive, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description is minimally complete: it states the action and the cascading effect. It lacks irreversibility, permission requirements, and error behavior, which an agent might need before invoking a delete operation. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (location, projectId, repository). The description adds nothing about parameter formats, defaults, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't compensate.

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 uses a specific verb ('deletes') and resource ('repository'), and crucially adds scope: 'and all packages/versions inside it.' This distinguishes it from sibling ar_delete_version, which removes a single version, not the whole repository. An agent can select correctly without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage (delete a whole repository) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like ar_delete_version for partial deletion. It's adequate but leaves routing to inference from the name and sibling names.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools