Flow Boards MCP Server

delete_tickets

Delete multiple tickets at once by providing their IDs. Clean up your Flow Boards and keep your projects organized.

Instructions

Delete multiple tickets by ID.

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": {
      "ids": "<ids>"
    },
    "name": "delete_tickets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	Yes	List of ticket IDs to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the action but fails to mention permanence, required permissions, or return behavior, which 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 with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core operation.

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?

For a one-parameter batch delete, the description is minimally adequate but lacks essential context about destructiveness, return values, or how it differs from reversible archiving. This is especially important given no annotations or output schema.

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?

The input schema fully documents the 'ids' parameter as 'List of ticket IDs to delete.' The description's 'by ID' adds no extra information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (delete), the resource (tickets), and the scope (multiple, by ID). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_ticket (singular) and archive_tickets (archiving).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The word 'multiple' implies batch deletion, but the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. There is no guidance on choosing between delete_ticket, delete_tickets, and archive_tickets.

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