Skip to main content
Glama
dpesch

MantisBT MCP Server

by dpesch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Delete Note

delete_note
DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently deletes a note from a MantisBT issue using issue_id and note_id. This action is irreversible and cannot be undone.

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 list_notes or from get_issue (notes[].id); obtain issue_id from the same source.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
note_idYesNumeric note ID to delete — obtain from get_issue (notes[].id) or list_notes
issue_idYesNumeric issue ID that owns the note — use get_issue or list_notes to identify this value

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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
  2. Addedv1.10.4
  3. Removed
  4. 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"
  5. First observedv1.5.6

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by stating irreversibility ('cannot be recovered'), the access-control model (own notes only unless manager-level or higher), and both success and failure return behavior. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Front-loaded with the destructive action and irreversibility warning, then error behavior and prerequisites. Slightly redundant in restating ID-sourcing already in the schema, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return value ('plain-text confirmation message') and error cases. Combined with 100% schema coverage, nothing needed to invoke this destructive tool correctly 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 fully documented there, including their sourcing guidance, which the description largely repeats. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a note from a MantisBT issue'), which cleanly separates it from delete_issue, add_note, and update_issue. An agent can identify the operation 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?

It states a clear prerequisite chain (obtain note_id from list_notes or get_issue notes[].id; issue_id from the same source) and error conditions. It does not explicitly contrast with a named alternative, but the context for when to call it is unambiguous.

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