gitlab_delete_issueDeletes a GitLab issue by specifying its project or group and issue IID.
Delete an issue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| labels | No | ||
| group_id | No | ||
| per_page | No | ||
| issue_iid | No | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| state_event | No | ||
| assignee_ids | No | ||
| milestone_id | No | ||
| api_parameters | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v27.3.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing on top — no mention of irreversibility, required permissions, confirmation needs, or what happens to notes and related records.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is short but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded because there is no content beyond the restatement of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A destructive write operation with 15 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations explaining parameter semantics places the full burden on the description, which does nothing. An agent cannot call this correctly without guessing which parameters address the issue.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are 15 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. Critical inputs like project_id, group_id, issue_iid, and the oddly present page/per_page/max_pages/title/labels/state fields are left totally unexplained, so an agent cannot tell which are required to identify the issue.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description restates the name and title ('Delete an issue.') without adding any specification of scope, such as whether it targets a project issue or group issue, or which identifiers select the issue. It does not distinguish this from siblings like gitlab_delete_epic or from closing an issue via gitlab_update_issue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 alternatives such as gitlab_update_issue with a close state_event, or the epic deletion tool. The description also omits prerequisites (ownership, permissions) that would let an agent decide whether deletion is the right action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.