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

google-cloud-console-mcp

by kutleloove
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Delete GCP project

gcp_delete_project

Request deletion of a GCP project, which soft-deletes it and allows restoration within about 30 days. Use to remove projects you no longer need.

Instructions

Requests deletion of a GCP project (soft delete — Google retains it for ~30 days and it can be restored with gcp_undelete_project within that window).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gcp_delete_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdNoGCP project id; defaults to GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT env var if omitted

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it reveals that deletion is soft, that Google retains the project ~30 days, and that it is reversible in that window. It omits permission/IAM requirements and any note on whether the call is immediate or queued, keeping it from a 5.

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 front-loaded sentence with the destructive semantics stated first and the recovery window parenthetically attached. Zero filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the critical behavioural context (soft delete, retention, restore path). Missing only auth/permission expectations and the post-window irreversibility, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, including the GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT default behaviour. The description adds nothing about projectId semantics, so the baseline 3 for schema-driven documentation applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Requests deletion of a GCP project') and distinguishes itself from the adjacent gcp_undelete_project sibling by framing the operation as a soft delete. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear context for use by describing the outcome (project retained ~30 days) and names the recovery alternative gcp_undelete_project. It does not give explicit when-not-to-use guidance, such as preferring disable/undelete or warning about irreversibility after the window, so it falls short of a 5.

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