Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hacknplan-mcp

hacknplan-mcp

by mtuska
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

delete_design_element

Delete a design element and its entire sub-tree from a HacknPlan project. Requires confirmation to permanently remove the selected element.

Instructions

Delete a design element (and its sub-tree). Destructive. confirm=true required.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "element_id": "<element_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_design_element"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNo
element_idYes
project_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses destructive behavior, cascading deletion of the sub-tree, and the requirement for a confirmation flag. This goes beyond the basic action and provides critical safety information.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences, each adding essential information. It is front-loaded with the main action and follows with critical warnings, with no unnecessary words.

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 simple delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is deleted (including sub-tree), that it is destructive, and the confirmation requirement. It does not detail return values or effects on other related data, but those are less critical given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema has no descriptions for parameters. The description explains the role of 'confirm', but 'project_id' and 'element_id' are left to their names, which are reasonably self-explanatory. It compensates partially but not fully for the lack of schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('design element'), and further specifies the scope ('and its sub-tree'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_design_element or get_design_element.

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 purpose of the tool is clear, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The 'confirm=true required' note serves as a prerequisite, but the usage context is implied rather than stated.

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