openproject-mcp

Delete relation

op_delete_relation

Delete a relation between work packages by specifying its ID. Removes the link connecting two work packages.

Instructions

Delete a relation between work packages.

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_relation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete a relation' without mentioning side effects, irreversibility, permissions, or what happens to linked data. A delete operation inherently involves destruction, but the description does not elaborate on the scope or consequences.

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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of one sentence with only five words. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, which slightly reduces the score.

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 simple delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation, error cases) or provide any context about the relation being deleted. Given the complexity of the tool and the lack of output schema, the description is incomplete.

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?

The description does not mention the single parameter 'id' or clarify its meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to add any semantic value beyond what is obvious from the parameter name. The integer type and requirement are already in the schema, so the description adds nothing.

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 the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a relation'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like op_create_relation (create) and op_get_relation (get). The purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies that the tool should be used when the goal is to delete a relation, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., op_delete_work_package) or any prerequisites. The name and context make the usage fairly clear, but no additional direction is given.

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