Skip to main content
Glama

pylon_delete_issue

Delete an issue from the Pylon customer support platform by specifying its ID to remove resolved or outdated tickets from the system.

Instructions

Delete an issue

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe issue ID to delete

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function for pylon_delete_issue MCP tool that invokes PylonClient.deleteIssue and formats the response as text.
    async ({ id }) => {
    	const result = await client.deleteIssue(id);
    	return {
    		content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
    	};
    },
  • Zod input schema defining the 'id' parameter for the tool.
    {
    	id: z.string().describe('The issue ID to delete'),
    },
  • src/index.ts:381-393 (registration)
    Registration of the pylon_delete_issue tool on the MCP server.
    server.tool(
    	'pylon_delete_issue',
    	'Delete an issue',
    	{
    		id: z.string().describe('The issue ID to delete'),
    	},
    	async ({ id }) => {
    		const result = await client.deleteIssue(id);
    		return {
    			content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
    		};
    	},
    );
  • PylonClient helper method implementing the API DELETE call to /issues/{id}.
    async deleteIssue(id: string): Promise<SingleResponse<{ success: boolean }>> {
    	return this.request<SingleResponse<{ success: boolean }>>(
    		'DELETE',
    		`/issues/${id}`,
    	);
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete an issue' implies a destructive mutation, but it lacks details on permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, rate limits, or what happens to associated data (e.g., followers). This is a significant gap for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should address behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, or error handling. The minimal description fails to compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'id' documented as 'The issue ID to delete'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description 'Delete an issue' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (issue), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pylon_delete_account' or 'pylon_delete_contact' beyond the resource name, which is why it doesn't reach a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing issue ID), exclusions (e.g., not for archived issues), or comparisons to related tools like 'pylon_update_issue' or 'pylon_snooze_issue' for different operations.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JustinBeckwith/pylon-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server