Skip to main content
Glama
soil-dev

capsulemcp

by soil-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

delete_project

Destructive

Permanently delete a project requiring user confirmation and prior read; irreversible, so prefer closing the project to preserve history.

Instructions

DESTRUCTIVE & IRREVERSIBLE: permanently delete a project. Prefer update_project with status='CLOSED' to close a project while preserving history. Requires confirm=true. Always read the project first with get_project and confirm with the user before calling. Idempotent on retry: response is {deleted: true, alreadyDeleted: false, id} on a fresh delete or {deleted: true, alreadyDeleted: true, id} if the project was already gone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
confirmYesMust be set to true. Permanently deletes the project. Consider update_project status='CLOSED' instead. Irreversible.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.3.0
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "confirm"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "confirm"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description
      Previous value: -"Must be set to true. Permanently deletes the project (case). Consider update_project status='CLOSED' instead. Irreversible."New value: +"Must be set to true. Permanently deletes the project. Consider update_project status='CLOSED' instead. Irreversible."
  3. Addedv1.7.0
  4. Removedv1.6.2
  5. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes beyond them by disclosing irreversibility, the confirm=true requirement, and exact idempotent response shapes for fresh versus already-deleted projects.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the destructive warning, and every sentence adds operational value: alternative, required flag, precondition, and retry behavior. No filler.

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?

For a destructive two-parameter mutation with no output schema, this is complete: it covers safety, prerequisite workflow, alternative, and even the exact response contract. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description reinforces the confirm parameter with 'Requires confirm=true' and the destructive consequence, complementing the schema's const=true description. It does not add new meaning for id, but the role of id as the project to delete is unambiguous from the tool name and the get_project-first instruction.

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?

Opens with 'DESTRUCTIVE & IRREVERSIBLE: permanently delete a project,' giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It explicitly contrasts with update_project status='CLOSED' so an agent can distinguish this tool from the close-preserving-history 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?

States when to prefer update_project with status='CLOSED' and mandates a read-then-confirm workflow: 'Always read the project first with get_project and confirm with the user before calling.' There is no ambiguity about prerequisites or alternatives.

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