TaskLite MCP

delete_project

Destructive

Delete a project and all its boards, columns, and rows. Moves the project to the recycle bin, allowing admin restore until emptied; requires confirmation naming the project.

Instructions

Delete a project with every board, column and row inside it. Destructive: confirm with the user first, and name the project in the confirmation. The project goes to the organization recycle bin, so it can be restored from the admin until it is emptied.

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>"
    },
    "name": "delete_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes	Project id (from list_projects / create_project)
`organizationId`	No	Organization id; defaults to the credential organization when omitted

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.13.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

It discloses the destructive nature, the confirmation requirement, and that the project goes to the recycle bin for admin restoration, going beyond the destructiveHint annotation.

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 concise and well-structured, covering scope, user instruction, and recovery in two sentences with no redundant information.

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?

It fully explains the action's impact and recovery path, and since there is no output schema, no further return-value documentation is needed.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Both parameters are clearly described: projectId explains its source (list_projects/create_project) and organizationId notes the default behavior. Schema coverage is 100%.

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 clearly states the tool deletes a project and all its contents (boards, columns, rows), distinguishing it from sibling delete tools like delete_board and delete_item.

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?

It explicitly instructs to confirm with the user first and name the project in the confirmation, providing clear usage guidance and safety instructions.

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