Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reelsaw

reelsaw

by osbytes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Delete project

delete_project
DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a project and all its clips, stopping work in progress; the deletion is reversible for 7 days by default, but storage still counts until purged.

Instructions

Delete one of your projects and all its clips; work in progress stops. Reversible: restore_project brings it back for DELETED_RETENTION_DAYS (7 days by default). Storage still counts until purge_project (or the retention sweep) removes it for good; minutes already used stay counted. Returns { changed, restorable, storedBytes, forgetDecisions, message }.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesProject id (from list_projects, search_clips or create_project)
forgetDecisionsNoForget what Reelsaw learned from it (its decision log entries) when it is deleted for good, by purge_project or the retention sweep; restoring it cancels that. Default false keeps them

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.28.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / forgetDecisions
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Forget what Reelsaw learned from it (its decision log entries) when it is deleted for good, by purge_project or the retention sweep; restoring it cancels that. Default false keeps them",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Added value: +"Project id (from list_projects, search_clips or create_project)"
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the soft-delete/retention model, that storage keeps counting until purge, that used minutes are not refunded, and the exact return payload. Nothing an agent needs to predict the consequences is missing.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the destructive effect and scope, then reversibility window, then the residual-cost caveat, then the return shape. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields ({ changed, restorable, storedBytes, forgetDecisions, message }). Combined with the retention and billing caveats, this is complete for a two-parameter destructive mutation.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (id, forgetDecisions) are documented there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mentions forbidDecisions only as a return field and adds no syntax or constraint detail about either input parameter, so the baseline 3 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 ("Delete one of your projects and all its clips") and immediately scopes the effect: work in progress stops and clips go with the project. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling purge_project, which the description names as the permanent-removal path.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent: restore_project is the undo path within DELETED_RETENTION_DAYS (7 days default), and purge_project (or the retention sweep) is what actually frees the data. It also warns that minutes already used stay counted, which is decision-relevant before calling.

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