Skip to main content
Glama
vish288

mcp-argocd

by vish288
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Argocd Delete Resource

argocd_delete_resource
Destructive

Delete a single managed resource from an Argo CD application, letting the controller recreate it. Destructive action for forced reconciliation.

Instructions

Delete a single managed resource so the controller recreates it. destructive.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesResource kind, e.g. Deployment
nameYesApplication name; accepts namespace/name for apps-in-any-namespace
forceNoForce delete
groupNoAPI group ('' for core)
orphanNoOrphan dependents
projectNoProject; with it a missing app is 404 and a wrong-project app is 403
versionNoAPI versionv1
namespaceNoResource namespace
app_namespaceNoOverride appNamespace; defaults to ARGOCD_APP_NAMESPACE
resource_nameYesTarget resource name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.0
    • 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
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the trailing word 'destructive.' merely restates them. The description adds nothing about what is actually removed (the live object only, not the Git manifest), how force/orphan change the outcome, or any permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. The trailing fragment 'destructive.' is redundant with the annotations and slightly dilutes the sentence, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Annotations fully cover the safety profile, the schema documents every parameter, and no output schema is present to explain. The description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: that this is a transient delete whose purpose is controller-driven recreation.

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% across all 10 parameters, including nuanced entries for project, orphan, force, and app_namespace, so the schema carries the burden. The description contributes no parameter meaning beyond that baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Delete a single managed resource') plus the consequence ('so the controller recreates it'), which separates it from argocd_delete_application and argocd_run_resource_action. It never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from the word 'managed resource'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The clause 'so the controller recreates it' implies the intent (forcing reconciliation/self-heal) and is the closest thing to usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of argocd_delete_application as the alternative for removing the app itself.

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