Skip to main content
Glama
vish288

mcp-argocd

by vish288
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Argocd Delete Application

argocd_delete_application
Destructive

Deletes an Argo CD application, optionally removing its managed resources via cascade. Control deletion propagation and scope to safely tear down apps.

Instructions

Delete an application. destructive. cascade=False removes only the Application object.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesApplication name; accepts namespace/name for apps-in-any-namespace
cascadeNoAlso delete the app's resources
projectNoProject; with it a missing app is 404 and a wrong-project app is 403
app_namespaceNoOverride appNamespace; defaults to ARGOCD_APP_NAMESPACE
propagation_policyNoKubernetes deletion propagation policy (cascade deletes only)foreground

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.4.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / propagation_policy / description
      Previous value: -"Kubernetes deletion propagation policy"New value: +"Kubernetes deletion propagation policy (cascade deletes only)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / propagation_policy / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "foreground",
-  "background",
-  "orphan"
-]New value: +[
+  "foreground",
+  "background"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "type": "object",
-  "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the 'destructive' label is redundant. The added 'cascade=False removes only the Application object' clarifies the scope of deletion, but permissions, irreversibility, and 404/403 behavior are left to the schema.

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 definition is short and front-loaded, but the standalone 'destructive.' fragment duplicates the annotation and does not earn its place.

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?

The schema documents all five parameters and annotations cover the safety profile, so the sparse description is minimally adequate. However, for a destructive multi-parameter tool, it omits prerequisites and alternative deletion paths that an agent might need.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only touches the cascade parameter and adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an application'), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling deletion tools like argocd_delete_resource. The agent can identify the object type being deleted without opening the schema.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. The cascade note implies a choice but does not tell the agent when to choose cascade true versus false.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools