Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Plane MCP Server

Plane MCP Server

by leigangzhang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

delete_state

Removes a state from a Plane project using the project ID and state ID. Delete unwanted statuses from your workflow by specifying both UUIDs.

Instructions

Delete a state by ID.

Args: project_id: UUID of the project state_id: UUID of the state

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "state_id": "<state_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_state"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
state_idYes
project_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.11

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, but it only says 'Delete a state by ID' without mentioning irreversibility, cascading effects, permissions, or error conditions. It does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first sentence. The Args block is short and adds the UUID type information, with no unnecessary wording.

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?

For a simple two-parameter delete operation, the description provides the essential behavior and parameters. However, the absence of any behavioral context (e.g., consequences of deletion) and no annotations or output schema leaves it only minimally complete.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args block adds some value by specifying that both parameters are UUIDs and indicating their roles. However, this is largely redundant with the parameter names and does not explain relationships or constraints.

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 action ('Delete a state') and the method ('by ID'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_state, retrieve_state, and update_state.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a state can be safely deleted or if any prerequisites exist. The usage is only implied by the verb 'Delete'.

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