Skip to main content
Glama
dev-in-black

OpenProject MCP Server

by dev-in-black
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

delete_relation

Remove connections between work packages in OpenProject by specifying the relation ID to delete, helping maintain accurate task relationships.

Instructions

Remove a relation between work packages.

Args:
    relation_id: Relation ID to delete

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
relation_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • src/openproject_mcp/server.py:364-371 (handler)
    MCP tool handler for 'delete_relation', registered with @mcp.tool() decorator, delegates execution to the relations helper module.
    @mcp.tool()
async def delete_relation(relation_id: int):
    """Remove a relation between work packages.

    Args:
        relation_id: Relation ID to delete
    """
    return await relations.delete_relation(relation_id=relation_id)
  • src/openproject_mcp/tools/relations.py:108-123 (helper)
    Core helper function implementing the deletion of a relation using OpenProjectClient API.
    async def delete_relation(relation_id: int) -> dict[str, Any]:
    """Remove a relation between work packages.

    Args:
        relation_id: Relation ID to delete

    Returns:
        Success confirmation
    """
    client = OpenProjectClient()

    try:
        result = await client.delete(f"relations/{relation_id}")
        return result
    finally:
        await client.close()

Tool Definition Quality

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether deletion is permanent/reversible, side effects (e.g., impact on linked work packages), or error handling. This is inadequate for a destructive operation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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?

The description adds essential meaning beyond the schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that 'relation_id' is the 'Relation ID to delete', clarifying the parameter's purpose. Since there's only one parameter, this is sufficient to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, though it could note format constraints (e.g., integer ID).

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and target ('a relation between work packages'), which is specific and distinguishes it from other deletion tools like delete_work_package. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from remove_watcher or other relation-manipulation tools like create_relation, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing relation), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like delete_work_package or remove_watcher, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dev-in-black/openproject-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server