Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ya-tracker-mcp

ya-tracker-mcp

by imdeniil
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

delete_entity_attachment

Delete an attachment from a project, portfolio, or goal by providing the entity type, entity ID, and file ID.

Instructions

Delete an attachment from a project, portfolio, or goal.

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": {
      "entity_type": "<entity_type>",
      "entity_id": "<entity_id>",
      "file_id": "<file_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_entity_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_idYesAttachment file ID
entity_idYesEntity ID
entity_typeYes"project", "portfolio", or "goal"

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.2

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It merely states the action ('Delete an attachment') without disclosing whether deletion is permanent, requires special permissions, or has side effects—important context for a destructive operation.

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, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and easy to parse.

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?

Despite being a simple delete operation, the description is under-specified for a destructive tool. It lacks details on permanence, prerequisites, differentiation from sibling tools, and any caveats, leaving significant gaps especially since no annotations exist.

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 describes all three required parameters (entity_type, entity_id, file_id) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the verb (Delete), resource (attachment), and scope (from a project, portfolio, or goal). This distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like delete_attachment by naming the specific entity types.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description implies usage for attachments on the listed entity types but does not contrast it with the similarly named delete_attachment or other delete tools.

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