openproject-mcp

Delete attachment

op_delete_attachment

Permanently delete an attachment from OpenProject by providing its unique ID. This action cannot be undone.

Instructions

Delete an attachment. Destructive.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "op_delete_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description only says 'Destructive,' which indicates mutation, but doesn't elaborate on side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what exactly is affected beyond the attachment itself. Since no annotations are provided, more detail is needed.

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 description is extremely concise but at the expense of necessary detail. While not verbose, it omits essential information, making it barely adequate.

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 tool with no output schema and minimal parameter info, the description lacks completeness. It does not cover error states, usage context, or integration with other tools like op_list_attachments.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'id,' and the description does not explain what the id refers to (e.g., attachment ID). This is a critical gap for correct tool invocation.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Delete an attachment,' providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like op_get_attachment and op_upload_attachment, which have different actions.

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 guidance on when to use this tool or alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, when not to use, or comparison to other delete tools like op_delete_work_package.

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