redmine-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete an issue relation

issues_delete_relation

Destructive

Removes an issue relation by its relation ID to delete dependencies, duplicates, or other links between issues in Redmine.

Instructions

Removes an issue relation by its relation id.

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": "issues_delete_relation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Relation id (not an issue id).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond restating the removal, giving no information about irreversibility, side effects on the related issues, or error behavior when the relation id is unknown.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the acting verb and the identifying parameter, no filler and no redundancy. Appropriately sized for a one-parameter delete operation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter destructive delete with full annotation coverage and a 100% documented schema, the description covers what the tool does and which identifier to supply. Only minor items are missing, such as confirmation of irreversibility or behavior on a non-existent relation id.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Relation id (not an issue id)'. The description's phrase 'by its relation id' merely echoes the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('Removes') and resource ('an issue relation') scoped to a relation id, so the agent can tell it acts on relations rather than issues. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like issues_delete, issues_list_relations, or issues_create_relation, but the resource noun 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 Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., that the relation must exist), and no mention of alternatives such as issues_delete for removing issues themselves. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name and sibling list.

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