Skip to main content
Glama

Delete work package

delete_work_package
Destructive

Permanently remove a work package and all its attachments, comments, and time entries after user confirmation. Use only when closing the status is not an option, as deletion cannot be undone.

Instructions

Permanently delete a work package and everything attached to it.

Use only on explicit user instruction. Deletion removes the work package with its comments, attachments, time entries and relations, and OpenProject offers no API-side undo.

Returns a small confirmation object once OpenProject accepts the deletion.

Pitfalls: children are not deleted with the parent, so check get_work_package(id, include=['children']) first and decide what happens to them. If you only want the work package out of the way, update_work_package(id, status=<a closed status>) is almost always the better answer — get_project_metadata lists which statuses this instance treats as closed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesWork package id to delete permanently.
confirmNoMust be true. Ask the user to confirm first — the API offers no undo. Calling with confirm=false returns a confirmation_required error rather than deleting anything.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesId of the work package that was deleted.
deletedYesTrue once OpenProject accepted the deletion.
messageYesHuman-readable confirmation.
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial context: deletion is permanent, removes comments/attachments/time entries/relations, has no API-side undo, and the key pitfall that children are not deleted. It also clarifies the return behavior with a confirmation object.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, warning, return note, and pitfalls section. Every sentence carries important operational information, with no filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's destructive nature and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: prerequisites (check children), cascading deletion effects, alternatives, the confirm flag behavior, and the permanent consequences. It is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke this tool safely.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters, including the confirm flag's requirement and behavior. The description reinforces the confirmation requirement but does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Permanently delete a work package and everything attached to it.' This names the exact action and resource, and distinguishes the tool from related siblings like delete_work_package_relation and update_work_package.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use instructions: 'Use only on explicit user instruction.' It also advises checking children via get_work_package before deletion and recommends update_work_package with a closed status as a safer alternative, referencing get_project_metadata for closed statuses.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kar-thik/openproject-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server