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

@illodev/taiga-mcp

by illodev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

taiga_userstory_statuses_delete

Delete a user story status in Taiga by its ID. Clean up project workflows by removing statuses that are no longer needed.

Instructions

Delete a userstory statuses.

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_userstory_statuses_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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. It only says 'delete', which implies destruction, but it doesn't mention irreversibility, permission requirements, or potential failures (e.g., cannot delete a status in use). The description adds no context beyond the verb.

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?

The description is a single, short sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise, though it is also minimal.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, a short description could be sufficient, but this one omits essential context such as the fact that deletion is by ID, the irreversible nature, or any caveats about statuses in use. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to understand the full implications.

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 schema covers the single 'id' parameter with a description ('ID'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameter, leaving the schema to carry the parameter semantics.

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 'Delete a userstory statuses' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (userstory status), though the grammar is awkward. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the specific resource type and the delete verb, but it doesn't add any additional context beyond what the tool name already conveys.

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, prerequisites, or alternatives. There is no mention of when deletion is appropriate, what happens to related data, or that users should use update/bulk_update_order for reordering instead.

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