HAOps MCP Server

haops_delete_channel

Delete a channel and all its discussions from a HAOps project to clean up communication spaces.

Instructions

Delete a channel from a HAOps project. This will also delete all discussions in the channel.

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": {
      "projectSlug": "<projectSlug>",
      "channelId": "<channelId>"
    },
    "name": "haops_delete_channel"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`verbose`	No	If true, return the full API response instead of the compact summary (default: false)
`channelId`	Yes	UUID of the channel to delete
`projectSlug`	Yes	The project slug (URL identifier)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.8.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key side effect: deleting the channel also deletes all discussions. However, it lacks information on irreversibility, authorization requirements, or other potential impacts, leaving the agent underspecified for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the primary action and then add the critical side effect. Every word contributes value, with zero redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core action and the cascade deletion of discussions. It could be improved by mentioning return value or permission requirements, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the primary consequence.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (verbose, channelId, projectSlug). The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond what is in the schema, earning the baseline score.

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 action ('Delete a channel') and the resource ('from a HAOps project'), and specifies that all discussions in the channel are also deleted. This differentiates it from sibling tools like create or update channel, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it (e.g., if discussions should be preserved). No explicit alternatives or context for the appropriate situation are given.

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

Deploy Server