tasks.deletePermanently delete one private general task from the selected SparkLaunch project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | No | ||
| expected_version | Yes | ||
| confirmation_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds that deletion is permanent, reinforcing irreversibility. It also narrows the scope to a private general task within the selected project. However, it does not disclose consequences for related data or any authorization requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to either the action, the resource type, or the project scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive, 5-parameter operation requiring expected_version and confirmation_token, the description provides only the basic deletion intent. It omits any guidance about when a confirmation token is needed, how optimistic concurrency works, or what happens upon deletion. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain expected_version, confirmation_token, idempotency_key, or how project_id scoping works, leaving critical semantics to the agent's inference from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Permanently delete') and resource ('one private general task from the selected SparkLaunch project'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. The delete operation is unambiguous and easily distinguished from sibling tools like tasks.create, tasks.update, and tasks.list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The deletion purpose is implied and clear from the verb, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives or any exclusions. An agent can infer it is the right tool for removal, but the description does not state conditions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Domain prefixes (crm., cap_table., landing.) clearly separate broad modules, and most tools target a specific resource and action. However, within modules there are boundary overlaps—crm.add_contact_note vs crm.log_activity and cap_table.dilution_preview vs cap_table.simulate_raise—where descriptions must be read carefully to avoid a wrong pick.
The dominant pattern is module.verb_noun (e.g., crm.create_lead, cap_table.update_stakeholder), which is clear and readable. But a subset of top-level tools uses object_verb with flat underscores (e.g., shortlink_create, qr_generate, campaign_archive) and one outlier (campaign_stats) breaks the verb pattern, so conventions are mixed.
86 tools is an extreme surface for any single MCP server, well past the 50+ threshold that makes coherent selection impractical. Even though the features span several business domains, this would be far more usable split into focused servers per module.
The covered domains are broadly complete: cap table, CRM, incorporation, landing, projects, sparkroom, tasks, and validation all have read/write workflows with few dead ends. Minor gaps remain (no campaign listing/update, no branding palette delete/update, no contact deletion) but none of them blocks the main product workflows.