jira-mcp-server

delete_worklog

Remove a worklog entry from a Jira issue by specifying the issue key and worklog ID, ensuring accurate time logs.

Instructions

Delete a worklog entry

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": {
      "issueKey": "<issueKey>",
      "worklogId": "<worklogId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_worklog"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issueKey`	Yes
`worklogId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning permanence, permissions, side effects, or reversibility. For a destructive operation, this is a critical omission and does not help the agent understand consequences.

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 one short sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation, though it is so under-specified that conciseness borders on minimalism. Still, no unnecessary information is included.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It leaves uncertain about consequences, error cases, or access requirements. It provides only the bare function, which is inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool safely and correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the purpose of issueKey or worklogId. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no value beyond the schema and fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'delete' with the resource 'worklog entry', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_worklog and add_worklog. The statement is unambiguous and directly states the tool's function.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or refer to related tools like update_worklog. Usage context is entirely implied by the name, leaving the agent without explicit direction.

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