@drmaxbdc/productboard-mcp

delete_note_relationship

Remove a relationship from a Productboard note to unlink a customer or link. Specify note ID, target type, and target ID.

Instructions

Remove a relationship from a Productboard note.

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": {
      "noteId": "<noteId>",
      "targetType": "<targetType>",
      "targetId": "<targetId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_note_relationship"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`noteId`	Yes	Note UUID
`targetId`	Yes	Target UUID
`targetType`	Yes	Relationship type to delete

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?

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden for a destructive mutation, yet it discloses nothing about reversibility, required permissions, or side effects on the related customer/link entity. 'Remove' conveys deletion but no behavioral detail beyond that.

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 the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a destructive operation.

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?

For a required-3-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits prerequisites, irreversibility, and success/failure behavior. The schema covers the inputs, but nothing covers the operation's consequences.

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%: noteId, targetId, and the targetType enum are all documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra parameter meaning (e.g. which relationship types exist or what a 'link' target means) beyond the schema.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('a relationship from a Productboard note'), which clearly separates it from create_note_relationship and get_note_relationships among the siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings or the relationship types, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The verb implies a deletion context, but nothing tells the agent when this is appropriate versus updating or recreating the relationship.

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