Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SourceCraft MCP Server

SourceCraft MCP Server

by ramgml
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

delete_repository

Delete a repository from SourceCraft by specifying the owner and repo name to remove it permanently.

Instructions

Delete a repository.

Args: owner: Repository owner repo: Repository name

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "delete_repository"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYes
ownerYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Delete a repository' without noting that deletion is irreversible, may be restricted by permissions, or could cascade to dependent resources. The verb 'delete' implies mutation, but richer context 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core action. The Args section adds brief definitions without fluff. However, the parameter list partially duplicates the input schema, so it is not maximally efficient.

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, two-parameter operation with no annotations and no visible output schema description, the tool should disclose irreversibility, permission requirements, and any dependent effects. None of that is provided. The description is adequate only as a minimal statement of intent.

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 0%, and the description adds minimal semantics by identifying 'owner' as 'Repository owner' and 'repo' as 'Repository name'. This explains the parameters slightly beyond their schema titles, but does not provide formats, examples, or constraints.

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 a repository'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_repository, update_repository, and _get_repository. The intent is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not warn about destructive consequences, mention when deletion is appropriate or disallowed, or reference related tools like update_repository. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name alone.

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