testit-mcp-server

delete_work_item

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a work item by its UUID to remove it from the TestIT test management platform. Use this action to clean up projects by permanently removing work items by ID.

Instructions

Delete a work item by ID (UUID).

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_work_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Work item UUID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond restating deletion: it does not say whether the item is recoverable, whether comments/links/attachments cascade, 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined density.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the definition omits the details an agent most needs: recoverability, side effects on related entities, and how it differs from purge. Annotations cover only the abstract safety flags.

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 the schema already documents the single parameter as 'Work item UUID.' The description's '(UUID)' adds no meaning beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a work item') plus the identifier type, so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like purge_work_item, restore_work_item, or delete_work_item_comment, leaving the soft-vs-hard delete distinction unresolved.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The presence of purge_work_item and restore_work_item among siblings makes the missing distinction between reversible deletion and permanent purge a meaningful gap the description never addresses.

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

Deploy Server