Remove a column from a project. Answers with how many issues lost a value, because that number is what the decision was about — the issues themselves are untouched. Project lead or admin only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Field name, e.g. 'Provider'. | |
| projectKey | Yes | Project key, e.g. 'CRM'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that the operation is destructive (removes a column), explains the side effect on issues (they lose a value), and clarifies that issues themselves are untouched – providing rich behavioral context beyond the simple 'remove' action.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains the consequence, and the third adds the permission constraint. No wasted words.
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 straightforward mutation tool with two parameters and high schema coverage, the description covers the essential context: action, side effect, and authorization. It could mention error responses or whether the operation is reversible, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 already has 100% description coverage, with clear examples for 'name' and 'projectKey'. The description does not add new parameter-level details but reinforces the semantic that 'name' refers to a column (field) name. Given high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb ('Remove') and resource ('a column from a project'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'set_project_field' which likely modifies rather than deletes. The phrasing is specific and unambiguous.
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?
It explicitly notes the permission requirement ('Project lead or admin only'), which serves as a strong usage constraint. It also implicitly distinguishes from 'list_project_fields' (which lists) and 'set_project_field' (which modifies), making it clear when to use this tool versus alternatives.
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.
