Project Tracker MCP Server

by spranab

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

delete_context

Removes a context entry by UUID, keeping project tracking data accurate and up to date.

Instructions

Delete a context entry

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": {
      "context_id": "<context_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_context"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`context_id`	Yes	UUID of the context to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, yet all it discloses is that a deletion occurs. It says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, whether related records cascade, or whether the deletion can be undone — all critical for a destructive operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the operation is stated immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

The schema is simple and fully documented, and no output schema is needed for a delete, so the input side is covered. The remaining gap is the absence of any behavioral warning for a destructive tool with no annotations — the definition is minimally viable but not safe to invoke blindly.

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 100%: context_id is fully documented as 'UUID of the context to delete'. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a clear verb (delete) and resource (context entry), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it is essentially the tool name expanded by one word, adding no scope detail (permanent vs. archival, single vs. bulk) and no differentiation from sibling mutation tools like update_context or delete_summary.

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 on when to use this versus update_context, search_context, or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The usage is only implied by the word 'delete', which is not enough for an agent choosing among 40 tools.

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