Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
huly-mcp-selfhost

huly-mcp-selfhost

by JoKeks2023
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

delete_issue

Destructive

Permanently delete a Huly issue by its identifier, such as PROJ-123, to remove outdated or duplicate records from a project.

Instructions

Permanently delete an issue by identifier (e.g. "PROJ-123")

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": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>",
      "identifier": "<identifier>"
    },
    "name": "delete_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workspaceYes
identifierYesIssue identifier to delete, e.g. "PROJ-123"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.5.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The word 'Permanently' usefully reinforces irreversibility beyond the hint, but the description is silent on cascade effects (comments, attachments, relations), whether a trash/recovery path exists, and required 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the critical qualifier ('Permanently') and the identifier format up front. No filler, no redundancy.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition is minimally viable to invoke but thin on consequences. An agent knows what it deletes but not what else disappears, whether recovery is possible, or what 'workspace' scopes.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description echoes the identifier example already present in the schema and adds no new meaning. The 'workspace' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description (50% coverage), leaving ambiguity about scope that the description does not compensate for.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete an issue') plus the identifier form ('PROJ-123'). The resource noun cleanly separates it from delete_attachment, delete_comment, and update_issue, though it never explicitly routes the agent among them.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is offered; the description only says what the tool does. There is no mention of alternatives (e.g. closing vs deleting), no prerequisites, and no confirmation or permission preconditions for an irreversible action.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools