Skip to main content
Glama
nulab

Backlog MCP Server

delete_project

Remove a project from Backlog by specifying its ID or key to manage your project workspace effectively.

Instructions

Deletes a project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdNoThe numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345)
projectKeyNoThe key of the project (e.g., 'PROJECT')

Implementation Reference

  • The async handler function that resolves the project ID or key using resolveIdOrKey and calls backlog.deleteProject to delete the project.
    handler: async ({ projectId, projectKey }) => {
      const result = resolveIdOrKey(
        'project',
        { id: projectId, key: projectKey },
        t
      );
      if (!result.ok) {
        throw result.error;
      }
      return backlog.deleteProject(result.value);
    },
  • Zod schema definition for the delete_project tool input parameters: projectId (optional number) and projectKey (optional string).
    const deleteProjectSchema = buildToolSchema((t) => ({
      projectId: z
        .number()
        .optional()
        .describe(
          t(
            'TOOL_DELETE_PROJECT_PROJECT_ID',
            'The numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345)'
          )
        ),
      projectKey: z
        .string()
        .optional()
        .describe(
          t(
            'TOOL_DELETE_PROJECT_PROJECT_KEY',
            "The key of the project (e.g., 'PROJECT')"
          )
        ),
    }));
  • Registration of the delete_project tool by calling deleteProjectTool factory and adding it to the 'project' toolset in allTools.
    deleteProjectTool(backlog, helper),
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('deletes') without disclosing critical behavioral traits. It lacks information on permissions required, irreversibility, side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or response format, which are essential 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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Deletes a project', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this brevity contributes to underspecification rather than effective communication.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address safety concerns, expected outcomes, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps in understanding despite the simple parameter schema.

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 parameters projectId and projectKey are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as which parameter to prioritize or how they interact, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Deletes a project' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not clarify what type of project (e.g., software, task) or distinguish it from sibling tools like delete_issue or delete_version, which handle different resources.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., project existence), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like update_project, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nulab/backlog-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server