huly-mcp-selfhost

remove_blocked_by

Destructive

Remove a blocking dependency link between two issues in Huly. Use it to clear a "blocked by" relation so the blocked issue is no longer tied to the specified blocking issue.

Instructions

Remove a "blocked by" link from an issue

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>",
      "blockedBy": "<blockedBy>"
    },
    "name": "remove_blocked_by"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`blockedBy`	Yes	Blocking issue to remove, e.g. "PROJ-100"
`workspace`	Yes
`identifier`	Yes	Blocked issue id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations: no statement about reversibility, idempotency, whether the linked issue is affected, or required permissions on the workspace. For a destructive mutation this leaves a real gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than precision.

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?

With 3 required parameters and no output schema, the definition is only minimally sufficient. The destructive nature of the operation is covered by annotations, but details an agent would want, such as error behavior when the link does not exist, are absent.

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 a middling 67%: blockedBy and identifier are documented in the schema, while workspace is not. The description does not compensate for the undocumented workspace parameter or clarify the relationship between "blocked issue" and "blocking issue", but since the schema documents the two most consequential parameters, a baseline 3 is fair.

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 ("Remove") and resource (a "blocked by" link on an issue), which is enough to distinguish it from the add_* sibling it pairs with. It does not explicitly name add_blocked_by as the inverse, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the add counterpart, no prerequisites (e.g. must the link exist?), and no note on what happens if the link is absent. Usage is only inferable from the name and one-line purpose.

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

Deploy Server