roadmap-skill

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_dependency_view

Delete a dependency planning view from a project by specifying the project ID and view ID. Use this to remove obsolete views and keep the roadmap clean.

Instructions

Delete a dependency planning view by project ID and view ID

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>",
      "viewId": "<viewId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_dependency_view"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`viewId`	Yes
`projectId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the delete action and IDs, but does not mention that deletion is permanent, potential cascading effects, or any other side effects, leaving the agent without important behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word is functional and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple delete tool with two required parameters and no annotations, the description is adequate but lacks warnings about irreversibility or side effects on dependent data. It does not explain the outcome or any error conditions, so while it covers the basics, it leaves gaps for a tool that permanently deletes a resource.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does mention both parameters by name and clarifies the relationship (view is scoped by project), but it does not provide formats, constraints, or examples. This adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a clear resource ('dependency planning view'), and identifies the required identifiers ('by project ID and view ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_dependency_view, get_dependency_view, and update_dependency_view.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context on prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. It simply states the action without any situational advice.

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