@drmaxbdc/productboard-mcp

delete_entity_relationship

Delete a relationship from a Productboard entity by providing the relationship type and target entity ID. Use to remove parent, child, link, blocked, or blocking connections.

Instructions

Remove a relationship from a Productboard entity. Requires the relationship type and target entity 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": {
      "entityId": "<entityId>",
      "type": "<type>",
      "targetId": "<targetId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_entity_relationship"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	Yes	Relationship type (parent, child, link, isBlockedBy, isBlocking)
`entityId`	Yes	Source entity UUID
`targetId`	Yes	Target entity UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.1Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive delete operation. It does not disclose irreversibility, permission requirements, or the effect on dependent relationships, saying only that it 'removes' the link.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler; every clause carries information.

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?

Schema coverage makes the parameters complete, but for a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema the description should explain reversibility and failure behavior, which it omits entirely.

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%, so the schema already documents entityId, type, and targetId. The description names the type and target but omits the entityId and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description uses a specific verb (Remove) plus resource (relationship from a Productboard entity), which cleanly separates it from create_entity_relationship and get_entity_relationships. It is clear but does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings.

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?

It states the required inputs but offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (auth/permissions), and no mention of the create/set alternatives. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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