upservice-mcp

upservice_delete_task

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete a task from Upservice by providing its ID. This action cannot be undone.

Instructions

Permanently delete a task. This is a destructive operation and cannot be undone.

Args: params (TaskIdInput): task_id (int)

Returns: str: JSON confirmation, or "Error: ..." on failure.

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "upservice_delete_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

While the description reinforces the destructive hint by noting permanence, it contradicts the idempotentHint annotation: deleting an already-deleted task would return an error, not be idempotent, as implied by the return format.

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 brief, front-loaded with the key statement, and includes a structured docstring for arguments and returns with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple delete tool, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, and return format. However, the idempotency contradiction and openWorldHint leave ambiguity about side effects.

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 schema includes a description for 'task_id', so the description adds no new meaning. It merely repeats the parameter name and type.

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 'Permanently delete a task', specifying action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools targeting different entities.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description warns about destructive and irreversible nature, providing strong context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or specify prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server