Skip to main content
Glama
dev-in-black

OpenProject MCP Server

by dev-in-black

delete_work_package

Remove a work package permanently from OpenProject by specifying its ID. This action deletes the task and its associated data.

Instructions

Permanently delete a work package.

Args:
    work_package_id: Work package ID to delete

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
work_package_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • Core implementation of delete_work_package that performs the actual API DELETE call to OpenProject.
    async def delete_work_package(work_package_id: int) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Permanently delete a work package.
    
        Args:
            work_package_id: Work package ID to delete
    
        Returns:
            Success confirmation
        """
        client = OpenProjectClient()
    
        try:
            result = await client.delete(f"work_packages/{work_package_id}")
            return result
        finally:
            await client.close()
  • MCP tool registration with @mcp.tool() decorator and wrapper handler that delegates to the work_packages module.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def delete_work_package(work_package_id: int):
        """Permanently delete a work package.
    
        Args:
            work_package_id: Work package ID to delete
        """
        return await work_packages.delete_work_package(work_package_id=work_package_id)
  • MCP server handler function for the 'delete_work_package' tool.
    async def delete_work_package(work_package_id: int):
        """Permanently delete a work package.
    
        Args:
            work_package_id: Work package ID to delete
        """
        return await work_packages.delete_work_package(work_package_id=work_package_id)
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the deletion is 'permanent', which is valuable context beyond the tool name. However, it doesn't mention required permissions, whether deletion can be undone, what happens to associated data, or error conditions—critical gaps for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place—the first establishes the action, the second explains the parameter. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover permissions, side effects, success/error responses, or recovery options. While concise, it lacks the depth needed for safe operation of a permanent deletion tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'work_package_id: Work package ID to delete'. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates by clarifying what the parameter represents. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., integer range) or where to find the ID, leaving some ambiguity.

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 specific action ('permanently delete') and target resource ('a work package'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_relation' or 'remove_watcher'. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this deletes work packages, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., checking dependencies first), consequences, or when to choose other deletion-related tools like 'delete_relation'. The description assumes the user already knows when deletion is appropriate.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dev-in-black/openproject-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server