xray_delete_preconditionRemove a Jira Xray Precondition issue permanently by providing its issue key or numeric ID, useful for cleaning up obsolete test preconditions.
Delete a Precondition issue permanently.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| precondition | Yes | Jira issue key (e.g. 'CALC-12') or numeric issue id. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the word 'permanently', reinforcing that this is not a recoverable/soft delete, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose cascading effects (e.g., removal from linked tests) or auth requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The destructive nature is conveyed immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a permanent delete of an issue type that other entities (tests) reference, the description omits any note about side effects or linked-entity impact, leaving a meaningful gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema explains it accepts a Jira issue key or numeric id. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema fully documents it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (a Precondition issue), making the target object clear. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as xray_delete_test or xray_delete_test_set beyond the resource noun, but the resource is distinct enough that selection is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no warning about consequences for tests that reference the precondition. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.