tracker_boards_deletePermanently deletes an agile board by its numeric ID. This action is irreversible, but existing issues on the board remain unaffected.
Permanently delete an agile board (irreversible; its issues are not affected).
Returns an acknowledgement on success.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| board_id | Yes | Numeric identifier of the agile board. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.67.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds value beyond them: it explicitly states the operation is irreversible and clarifies the non-obvious side effect that the board's issues are NOT deleted. It also notes an acknowledgement response, which the annotations do not cover.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the critical irreversibility warning before the secondary side-effect note. Nothing here is filler.
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?
For a one-parameter destructive tool whose safety profile is already carried by annotations, the description covers the important residuals: permanence, the effect on issues, and the success response. Auth/permission requirements are the only notable omission.
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?
Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents board_id fully. The description adds no additional meaning (e.g., format, source of the ID), so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("delete an agile board") and immediately distinguishes its scope from siblings like tracker_boards_get/update/create. The parenthetical adds meaningful scope (permanent, issues unaffected) that an agent can act on without opening the schema.
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?
The action is unambiguous, so usage is strongly implied, but the description never states when to delete versus when to deactivate/archive, nor any prerequisite (permissions, empty board, etc.). There is no explicit routing to an alternative, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.