jira-mcp-server

delete_issue_link

Delete a link between two Jira issues using its unique ID. Provide the link ID to remove the relationship and update issue connections.

Instructions

Remove a link between two issues

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "linkId": "<linkId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_issue_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`linkId`	Yes	The ID of the link to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('remove') but does not indicate whether deletion is permanent, if any side effects occur on the linked issues, or if special permissions are required. This is a significant gap 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose directly. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or tangential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient. It explains what it does and the schema tells the agent what is needed. However, the lack of behavioral details (permanence, side effects) and usage guidance makes it only 'adequate' rather than complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with linkId documented as 'The ID of the link to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema fully handles parameter meaning.

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?

The description 'Remove a link between two issues' uses a specific verb ('Remove') and a clear resource ('link between two issues'). It fully distinguishes this tool from siblings like link_issues (which creates a link) and delete_issues (which deletes entire issues).

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus link_issues or other deletion-related tools, nor does it state prerequisites like needing the linkId. The operative context is only implied by the verb and resource.

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