delete_issuePermanently delete a MantisBT issue by numeric ID. This irreversible action removes the issue from the tracker when it is no longer needed.
Permanently delete a MantisBT issue. This action is irreversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric issue ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.14.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / id / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991v1.10.4v1.5.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is structured data. The description reinforces permanence/irreversibility, which adds emphasis but no new behavioral facts such as permission requirements or side effects on attached notes/files.
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, zero waste, with the destructive nature front-loaded. Nothing extraneous.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the essentials are present. However, it omits error/permission behavior and what happens to dependent data (notes, relationships), which would be valuable for a delete operation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and there is a single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the id parameter beyond what the schema already documents.
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 ('delete') and resource ('MantisBT issue') with a clear scope modifier ('permanently'). It is distinguishable from siblings like delete_note or delete_version by resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. The 'irreversible' note is a warning, not routing guidance, so an agent must infer context on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.