kanboard-mcp

delete_task_file

Permanently delete a file attachment from a task. Explicit confirmation required to complete the irreversible removal.

Instructions

Permanently delete a file attachment from a Kanboard task. DESTRUCTIVE and irreversible — requires explicit confirm: true. To add an attachment use attach_file_to_task. Returns { ok: true, file_id } on success.

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": {
      "file_id": "<file_id>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "delete_task_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_id`	Yes	File id to permanently delete (required).
`confirm`	Yes	Must be exactly `true` to confirm permanent deletion.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedMay 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the destructive, irreversible nature and the need for confirmation. It also states the return value. This is sufficient for a delete tool, though it does not mention error conditions or permissions.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, alternative, and return format. It is complete enough for a simple deletion tool, though it could mention error handling.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It reinforces the need for 'confirm: true' but does not provide new meaning for the parameters.

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 clearly states the action: 'Permanently delete a file attachment from a Kanboard task.' It uses specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'attach_file_to_task' by mentioning the alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions the required confirmation parameter and provides an alternative for adding attachments. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or prerequisites beyond the confirmation.

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