redmine-mcp

delete_wiki_page

Permanently removes a wiki page from a Redmine project. This action cannot be undone.

Instructions

Wiki ページを削除する(取り消し不可)。

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "delete_wiki_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the single most important trait: the deletion is irreversible. However, it omits other relevant behavior such as whether child/subpages are cascaded, permission or authorization requirements, and whether the action fails on a missing page — meaningful 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with zero filler, and the destructive warning is placed in-line at the end where it is visible. It is efficiently sized, though the terseness is partly the source of the missing behavioral detail.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a destructive, unannotated tool with two fully undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It does not cover permission needs, cascade effects, or how project_id and title jointly select the target.

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?

Both parameters (project_id, title) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains that the page is identified by exact title scoped to a specific project, nor whether title matching is case-sensitive or how duplicates are resolved.

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 (削除する) and resource (Wiki ページ), so an agent can tell it apart from read_wiki_page/list_wiki_pages/write_wiki_page in the sibling set. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus write_wiki_page or the other wiki siblings, and no prerequisites or preconditions (e.g. confirmation, project membership). The only guidance is the irreversibility warning, which is a caution rather than usage direction.

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