GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_release_delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a GitFlic release by project and UUID so you can remove an unwanted release from a repository.

Instructions

Delete a release.

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "uuid": "<uuid>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_release_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`raw`	No	Return the full, un-slimmed GitFlic response for THIS call (no token compression). Use when the default slim view dropped a field you need.
`uuid`	Yes
`project`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that bar: it does not say whether deletion is permanent, what happens to attached assets or tags, or whether special authorization is needed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three words with zero padding and the key verb front-loaded, so it is structurally clean. The terseness is under-specification rather than bloat, which is penalized in the other dimensions rather than here.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive, open-world mutation tool with two undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent gets no confirmation of irreversibility, error behavior, or what identifiers are needed beyond what the annotations and schema already imply.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 33% – only 'raw' is documented in the schema, while the two required parameters, 'project' and 'uuid', carry no description anywhere. The description does not compensate by explaining what these identify or their format, leaving required inputs ambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Delete a release" names the verb and resource, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name (gitflic_release_delete) and the annotation title ("Release Delete"). It adds no scope, no distinction from siblings like gitflic_release_edit, and no indication of what a release deletion entails.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as gitflic_release_edit (to modify instead of remove), and no prerequisites such as ownership or permissions required. The only hint of appropriate usage comes from the tool name itself, not the description.

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

Deploy Server