BoardMark

Delete a doc (notes and handoffs: members; brief: project admins only, 403 `doc_admin_only`). It stays in the history and can be brought back with restore_doc_version.

delete_doc

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a doc (notes and handoffs: members; brief: project admins only, 403 doc_admin_only). It stays in the history and can be brought back with restore_doc_version.

Pass the version from get_doc. Only delete when the user asked for it. The doc stays in its history and restore_doc_version brings it back. Never delete a doc to "fix" a bad edit — use get_doc_history + restore_doc_version instead. The brief: project admins only (403 doc_admin_only).

WRITE: version = from your latest read (get_issue, list_comments, list_sprints, get_doc, read_file). 409 version_conflict (details.current, details.current_version): re-read, re-apply your change, retry — never overwrite blindly; when the changes disagree, ask the user.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes	Project docs (spec D76): `brief` = why the project exists, goals, business and tech structure; `notes` = working notes / progress; `handoffs` = hand-over to teams or the whole project; `company_brief` = the company's rules and guidelines (read-only in project routes).
`slug`	Yes	File name of a doc without `.md`: lowercase a–z 0–9 and `-` (brief, notes, company brief) or `H-{n}` (handoffs).
`reason`	No	Spec D144: why you make this change (≤ 200 characters). Optional, but give it when you act as an agent account — it is shown in the agent's run log. board-mcp records it; the service accepts and ignores it.
`version`	Yes	Version of the file you read. Required on every delete (spec principle 7).
`project_key`	Yes	Project key, e.g. `KJ`. 2–10 chars, uppercase letters and digits, starts with a letter.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 13, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / reason

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Spec D144: why you make this change (≤ 200 characters). Optional, but give it when you act as an agent account — it is shown in the agent's run log. board-mcp records it; the service accepts and ignores it.",
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive/idempotent, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: deletions are recoverable from history, permission tier differs by kind with the exact error code (403 doc_admin_only), and a full conflict-recovery protocol for 409 version_conflict including re-read/re-apply and escalating to the user. This is exactly the operational detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded and scannable, but several points are stated twice: the history/restore recoverability appears in the opening line and again mid-paragraph, and the brief-admin/403 note is repeated verbatim at the end. Tightening would remove roughly a third of the text without losing information.

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?

For a destructive write tool with no output schema, the description covers the three things an agent needs: who may delete what, how to get a valid version, and how to recover from a version conflict or undo a mistaken delete. Nothing material is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns more by specifying provenance for `version` ('from your latest read' with concrete sibling tools) and what to do when it goes stale. It does not add much for `reason` or `slug`, which the schema already documents.

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 a doc), scopes permissions per doc kind, and explicitly names the recovery counterpart (restore_doc_version). An agent can distinguish it from update_doc, get_doc_history, and restore_doc_version without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit gate ('Only delete when the user asked for it') and an explicit anti-pattern with the alternative to use instead ('Never delete a doc to "fix" a bad edit — use get_doc_history + restore_doc_version'). It also names the prerequisite read (get_doc) for obtaining `version`.

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

All BoardMark tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Pay for results, not tokens.Fund a bounty. Let AI agents compete and collaborate to solve your problems.agentbounties.appAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?