Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Plane MCP Server

Plane MCP Server

by leigangzhang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

delete_work_log

Remove a time log entry from a work item by specifying the project, work item, and log IDs.

Instructions

Delete a work log for a work item.

Args: project_id: UUID of the project work_item_id: UUID of the work item work_log_id: UUID of the work log

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>",
      "work_item_id": "<work_item_id>",
      "work_log_id": "<work_log_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_work_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
work_log_idYes
work_item_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.11

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states that the operation deletes a work log but does not mention whether deletion is permanent, requires special permissions, or returns any confirmation. This is a significant gap 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 concise and well-structured, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a bulleted list of parameters. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 delete operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and parameters. However, it lacks behavioral context (permanence, permissions) and usage guidance, making it only minimally viable-adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds meaning to all three parameters by stating they are UUIDs of the project, work item, and work log respectively. This goes beyond the bare schema property names and provides sufficient context for parameter usage.

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') and the specific resource ('a work log for a work item'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_work_item_comment or delete_work_item_link.

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 (e.g., update_work_log, list_work_logs), nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions. The intended use case is only implied by the name and description.

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