Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@illodev/taiga-mcp

@illodev/taiga-mcp

by illodev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

taiga_epics_delete

Delete a Taiga epic by its ID to permanently remove it from the project. Useful for cleaning up obsolete epics.

Instructions

Delete an epic.

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": "taiga_epics_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesEpic ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete an epic' implies a destructive operation but fails to mention permanence, effects on related user stories, permission requirements, or response behavior, leaving significant uncertainty for a mutation tool.

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?

At three words, the description is extremely concise and front-loaded. It communicates the essential action with zero wasted words, which is ideal for a simple delete operation.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the simplicity of a one-parameter delete tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits important behavioral caveats such as irreversibility, side effects on related entities, or permissions. The lack of annotations and output schema makes this a clear gap, yet the core function is identifiable.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'id' parameter (number, 'Epic ID'), so the baseline score is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema alone is sufficient.

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 'Delete an epic.' uses a specific verb (delete) and a clear resource (epic), which unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like taiga_epics_update or taiga_epics_create. It leaves no doubt about the tool's action and target.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context. It simply states the action without any elaboration on appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools