ticktick-mcp

delete_project

Permanently deletes a TickTick/Dida365 project by ID; this destructive action cannot be undone.

Instructions

Deletes a project. This is destructive and not reversible.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes	Project id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two highest-value behavioral facts: the operation is destructive and not reversible. However, it omits critical operational context such as whether contained tasks are also deleted or trashed, whether confirmation is required, and what happens on failure for a non-existent project id.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the destructive warning is front-loaded immediately after the purpose statement. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter delete tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential safety fact but leaves the main ambiguity unresolved: whether deleting a project cascades to its tasks/columns. An agent deciding whether to call this would benefit from knowing the blast radius, which is not stated.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents projectId. The description adds no format, source, or lookup detail (e.g., where to obtain the id) beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a project'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the other delete siblings (delete_task, delete_tag) by resource. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings or describe scope of deletion, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites or required permissions, and no suggested precursor such as verifying the project via get_project. The only advisory element is the destructive/irreversible warning, which is a caution rather than usage direction.

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