Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dpesch

MantisBT MCP Server

by dpesch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Delete Note

delete_note
DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently remove a note from a MantisBT issue by issue ID and note ID. This action is irreversible and requires delete permission.

Instructions

Permanently delete a note from a MantisBT issue. This action is irreversible — deleted notes cannot be recovered.

Returns a plain-text confirmation message on success. Returns an error if the note does not exist or the current user lacks permission to delete it (MantisBT enforces access control: users can typically only delete their own notes unless they have manager-level access or higher).

Prerequisites: obtain note_id from get_issue (notes[].id).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
note_idYesNumeric note ID to delete — obtain from get_issue (notes[].id)
issue_idYesNumeric issue ID that owns the note

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.15.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / issue_id / description
      Previous value: -"Numeric issue ID that owns the note — use get_issue or list_notes to identify this value"New value: +"Numeric issue ID that owns the note"
    • changedInput schema / properties / note_id / description
      Previous value: -"Numeric note ID to delete — obtain from get_issue (notes[].id) or list_notes"New value: +"Numeric note ID to delete — obtain from get_issue (notes[].id)"
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.14.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / issue_id / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / note_id / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
  3. Addedv1.10.4
  4. Removed
  5. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.10.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / issue_id / description
      Previous value: -"Numeric issue ID that owns the note"New value: +"Numeric issue ID that owns the note — use get_issue or list_notes to identify this value"
    • changedInput schema / properties / note_id / description
      Previous value: -"Numeric note ID to delete"New value: +"Numeric note ID to delete — obtain from get_issue (notes[].id) or list_notes"
  6. First observedv1.5.6

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds material context beyond them: irreversibility ('cannot be recovered'), the plain-text confirmation return, and the specific failure conditions (missing note, insufficient permission, manager-level access requirement). That is exactly the extra behavioral burden a destructive tool needs met.

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?

Front-loaded with the destructive verb and the irreversibility warning, then return behavior, then errors, then prerequisites as a labeled line. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is padding.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly states the success return (plain-text confirmation) and error cases. For a two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage, nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the note_id provenance ('obtain from get_issue') which the schema already says, and adds no new semantics for issue_id or constraints beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Permanently delete a note from a MantisBT issue' — with no ambiguity. The resource ('note' on an issue) is intrinsically separable from the sibling delete_issue and from note-related siblings like add_note/list_notes, so an agent can select it 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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent to get_issue to source note_id (notes[].id) and explains the permission model governing who may delete. It stops short of naming a when-not-to-use alternative (e.g., there is no 'use delete_issue instead' style exclusion), but the prerequisite chain is clearly spelled out.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools