Project Tracker MCP Server

by spranab

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

delete_status_update

Delete a status update by its UUID to remove outdated progress notes from the Project Tracker MCP Server.

Instructions

Delete a status update

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": {
      "status_update_id": "<status_update_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_status_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status_update_id`	Yes	UUID of the status update to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to related data, whether permissions are required, or what is returned, all of which matter 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 no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the gaps in other dimensions rather than compensating for them.

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 mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and many similar siblings, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell whether the delete is reversible, cascading, or gated by permissions.

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% and the single parameter's UUID purpose is fully documented in the schema, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond what is already structured. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (status update), so the agent knows the operation exactly. It does not differentiate from the many parallel delete_* siblings or reference alternatives, but the resource name itself distinguishes it.

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 tool versus alternatives such as update_status_update or the other delete_* tools. The condition for choosing deletion is left entirely to inference.

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