Directum RX MCP (rxmcp)

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

rx_delete_tickets

Destructive

Deletes agile board cards by numeric ID, moving them to Deleted status. Supports up to 100 IDs per call; verify cards with the user before deletion because it cannot be undone via this server.

Instructions

Удалить карточки с agile-доски так же, как это делает кнопка удаления в интерфейсе: карточка уходит с доски и получает статус Deleted. Вернуть её этим сервером нельзя. Нужны числовые Id карточек из rx_board или rx_tickets, не коды; до 100 за вызов. Перед вызовом перечислите пользователю, какие карточки будут удалены.

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": {
      "ids": "<ids>"
    },
    "name": "rx_delete_tickets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	Yes	Id карточек (числа из rx_board или rx_tickets, не коды вида ABC-12), до 100 за раз

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 2, 2026

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 the crucial consequence: the card leaves the board, gets Deleted status, and cannot be restored via this server. It also states the 100-item batch limit, giving behavior beyond the annotation set.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loading the destructive effect and irreversibility before the input constraints and the pre-call disclosure requirement. No filler.

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?

For a destructive, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, ID source and format, batch cap, and a required user-confirmation step. Annotations carry the safety profile; nothing needed to call it 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the format (numeric ids, not codes, up to 100). The description largely repeats this, adding no new syntax or source 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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Удалить карточки с agile-доски') and clarifies the exact semantics by analogizing to the UI delete button and stating the resulting status (Deleted). It is immediately distinguishable from rx_update_ticket or rx_get_task.

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?

Strong preconditions: IDs must be numeric from rx_board or rx_tickets (not codes like ABC-12), max 100 per call, and the agent must list the affected cards to the user before invoking. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative tool, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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