jira-mcp-server

delete_issues

Remove multiple Jira issues at once by specifying issue keys or IDs. Optionally delete subtasks when required.

Instructions

Delete one or more Jira 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": {
      "issueKeys": "<issueKeys>"
    },
    "name": "delete_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issueKeys`	Yes	List of issue keys or IDs to delete
`deleteSubtasks`	No	Whether to delete subtasks. Must be true if issue has subtasks.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that deletion is destructive and irreversible, that special handling of subtasks is required, or any permission requirements. The statement 'Delete one or more Jira issues' is a tautology that reveals no behavioral traits beyond the tool name.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the primary function. However, its brevity leaves out critical behavioral context, but conciseness itself is well-handled.

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 that this is a destructive operation with a parameter controlling subtask handling, the description is inadequate. It does not mention side effects, irreversibility, permissions, or what happens to subtasks. The absence of an output schema is not a concern, but the description should provide more behavioral context for a tool of this sensitivity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The input schema already documents both parameters (issueKeys and deleteSubtasks) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters are used, but the schema is sufficient.

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 'Delete one or more Jira issues' uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (Jira issues) with a clear scope (one or more). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_comment, delete_worklog, and delete_sprints.

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 vs alternatives. The description states what it does but gives no context about prerequisites, permissions, or situations where deletion might be inappropriate or when another tool (e.g., bulk transition) is more suitable.

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