Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
woodpecker-ci-mcp

woodpecker-ci-mcp

by ni-c
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Delete the logs of one step

delete_step_logs
DestructiveIdempotent

Removes stored output of a single CI step while keeping the step and pipeline intact. Use when a step printed a secret, then rotate the leaked credential.

Instructions

Deletes the stored output of a single step. The step and the pipeline stay, their logs do not. This is what you use when a step printed a secret. Two-step. Rotate the leaked credential as well — the log was readable until now, and deleting it does not un-read 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": {
      "repo_id": "<repo_id>",
      "number": "<number>",
      "step_id": "<step_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_step_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
numberYesPipeline number — the per-repository counter shown in the UI, not the global pipeline id.
repo_idYesNumeric repository id. lookup_repository turns an "owner/name" pair into one; list_repositories shows both.
step_idYesNumeric step id, from the workflows[].children[] of get_pipeline.
confirm_tokenNoToken from a previous call of this tool.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
truncatedNoPresent only when the answer was shortened to fit the budget.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description explains the two-step confirmation behavior, clarifies that only logs are deleted, and warns that deleting a log does not undo the exposure. This is valuable behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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 short, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place: core action, scope clarification, usage context, and safety warning. There is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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?

The combination of full schema coverage, the two-step confirmation flow hinted in the description, existing annotations, and an output schema leaves no critical gap. The credential-rotation warning makes this particularly complete for a destructive log-clearing tool.

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%, and the schema already explains repo_id, number, step_is and confirm_token, including where the identifiers come from. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Deletes the stored output of a single step') and clarifies that the step and pipeline remain while logs are removed. This clearly distinguishes it from pipeline-level deletion tools like delete_pipeline_logs.

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?

The description gives a concrete trigger condition ('This is what you use when a step printed a secret') and adds necessary follow-up guidance to rotate the credential. However, it does not name an alternative tool or explicitly state when not to use it.

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