testit-mcp-server

delete_section

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes (archives) a section together with its subsections and work items, removing the entire hierarchy from TestIT.

Instructions

Delete (archive) a section together with its subsections and work items.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_section"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Section UUID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the crucial detail they omit: the blast radius includes subsections and work items, not just the named section. The word 'archive' also signals a soft-delete rather than hard removal, useful context beyond the flags. It does not state whether the archive is reversible or what permissions are required.

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?

A single sentence with the destructive action and its cascade scope front-loaded, and no redundant restatement of the name or the annotations. Nothing in it could be removed without losing information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition covers action, scope, and archive semantics. The remaining gaps, reversibility of the archive and permission requirements, are minor but would matter before an agent fires a cascading delete.

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 one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'id' as a section UUID, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, lookup, or identifier-resolution detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 gives a specific verb ('Delete (archive)') and resource ('a section') and adds the cascade scope ('together with its subsections and work items'), which separates it from the other delete_* siblings by resource. It stops short of naming any sibling for contrast, but the resource naming is unambiguous.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as delete_work_item or move_section for restructuring. The agent must infer that this is for removing a whole section subtree, and the 'archive' framing is not explained as an alternative to permanent deletion.

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

Deploy Server