delete_projectPermanently delete a Redmine project by project_id to remove it from Redmine. Use when a project is no longer needed and must be erased completely.
Delete a project permanently.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Permanently' usefully discloses irreversibility, but it says nothing about required permissions/ownership, whether related issues, time entries or watchers are cascaded or orphaned, or whether failures are recoverable — all critical for an irreversible mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence with the destructive qualifier front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the terseness is under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the single flat parameter limits schema complexity. But for an irreversible delete with no annotations, missing cascade/permission effects and no distinction from archive_project leaves the definition under-complete for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required project_id, so all semantic burden falls on the description, which says nothing about the parameter (format, whether it is the ID versus key, or where to obtain it). The name is fairly self-evident, but no compensating detail is offered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource ('Delete a project') with the added adverb 'permanently' signaling finality, so the agent knows it is destructive rather than reversible. However, it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from siblings like archive_project/unarchive_project, which is the most likely source of misfire in this tool set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus archive_project or update_project. Since 'permanently' is stated, the natural implicit contrast is archiving, but the description never names the alternative or the condition that selects it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.