huly-mcp-selfhost

delete_todo

Destructive

Removes a to-do from a Huly workspace by its ID. Use it to clear completed or unneeded to-dos, with the ID retrieved from list_todos.

Instructions

Delete a to-do

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>",
      "todoId": "<todoId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_todo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`todoId`	Yes	From list_todos
`workspace`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The destructiveHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a destructive write, so the description's burden is lighter, but it adds nothing: no statement about permanence, whether subtasks/comments/attachments cascade, or whether the operation is reversible. For a destructive mutation the description contributes no behavioral context at all.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single phrase is front-loaded and free of waste, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy. There is no structure beyond the bare verb-object.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and one undocumented parameter, this is insufficient: an agent cannot tell what gets removed, whether the action is recoverable, or what a failure looks like. The annotations cover the safety flag but not the operational details.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 50%: todoId carries "From list_todos", while workspace is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not compensate, giving no hint about what workspace scopes or what identifier format todoId expects.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"Delete a to-do" restates the tool name and title almost verbatim, adding no scope detail. It does not distinguish this from sibling delete_attachment, delete_comment, delete_document, delete_issue, or delete_message beyond the resource noun.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no note on when deletion is preferable to update_todo or other lifecycle siblings. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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

Deploy Server