Remove an issue from a module and unassign the module from it. Specify project, module, and issue IDs.
Remove an issue from a module. Unassign module from issue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the issue to remove from the module | |
| module_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the module containing the issue | |
| project_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the project containing the module |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5-8seneca.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this operation is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting issue status), or returns any confirmation. For a deletion tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 extremely concise with two short sentences that directly state the action. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids any unnecessary words, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (a deletion operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it correctly in 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (project_id, module_id, issue_id) as UUID identifiers. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as relationships between parameters or format details, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 action ('Remove an issue from a module') and the resource ('issue'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_cycle_issue' or 'list_module_issues', which would require more specific context about module-issue relationships.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_cycle_issue' or 'update_issue', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing existing project, module, and issue IDs. It lacks context about typical workflows or error conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.