Skip to main content
Glama

delete_backtest

Remove a specific backtest from a QuantConnect project by providing the project ID and backtest ID to manage testing data and optimize storage.

Instructions

Delete a backtest from a project.

Args: project_id: ID of the project containing the backtest backtest_id: ID of the backtest to delete

Returns: Dictionary containing deletion result

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
backtest_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function implementing the 'delete_backtest' tool. It uses @mcp.tool() decorator for registration, authenticates with QuantConnect, sends a POST request to the 'backtests/delete' endpoint with project_id and backtest_id, parses the response, and returns a standardized success or error dictionary.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def delete_backtest(project_id: int, backtest_id: str) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Delete a backtest from a project.
    
        Args:
            project_id: ID of the project containing the backtest
            backtest_id: ID of the backtest to delete
    
        Returns:
            Dictionary containing deletion result
        """
        auth = get_auth_instance()
        if auth is None:
            return {
                "status": "error",
                "error": "QuantConnect authentication not configured. Use configure_auth() first.",
            }
    
        try:
            # Prepare request data
            request_data = {"projectId": project_id, "backtestId": backtest_id}
    
            # Make API request
            response = await auth.make_authenticated_request(
                endpoint="backtests/delete", method="POST", json=request_data
            )
    
            # Parse response
            if response.status_code == 200:
                data = response.json()
    
                if data.get("success", False):
                    return {
                        "status": "success",
                        "project_id": project_id,
                        "backtest_id": backtest_id,
                        "message": f"Successfully deleted backtest {backtest_id} from project {project_id}",
                    }
                else:
                    # API returned success=false
                    errors = data.get("errors", ["Unknown error"])
                    return {
                        "status": "error",
                        "error": "Backtest deletion failed",
                        "details": errors,
                        "project_id": project_id,
                        "backtest_id": backtest_id,
                    }
    
            elif response.status_code == 401:
                return {
                    "status": "error",
                    "error": "Authentication failed. Check your credentials and ensure they haven't expired.",
                }
    
            else:
                return {
                    "status": "error",
                    "error": f"API request failed with status {response.status_code}",
                    "response_text": (
                        response.text[:500]
                        if hasattr(response, "text")
                        else "No response text"
                    ),
                }
    
        except Exception as e:
            return {
                "status": "error",
                "error": f"Failed to delete backtest: {str(e)}",
                "project_id": project_id,
                "backtest_id": backtest_id,
            }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states this is a deletion operation (implying destructive action) but doesn't disclose critical details like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has confirmation steps, or affects related data. The mention of a return value is vague ('Dictionary containing deletion result') without explaining what that entails.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. However, the 'Returns' section is somewhat vague ('Dictionary containing deletion result'), which slightly reduces efficiency as it could be more specific about what the dictionary includes.

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?

Given this is a destructive operation with no annotations and an output schema exists (though unspecified here), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks crucial behavioral context (e.g., permanence, side effects) and detailed return value explanation, leaving gaps for safe agent usage.

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 explicitly lists both parameters with brief explanations ('ID of the project containing the backtest', 'ID of the backtest to delete'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. This compensates well for the schema gap, though it doesn't detail ID formats or validation rules.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a backtest from a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_file' or 'delete_optimization' beyond the resource name, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to identify the backtest first), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'list_backtests' or 'read_backtest' that might be needed beforehand.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/taylorwilsdon/quantconnect-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server