xray_delete_test_executionPermanently deletes a Test Execution issue and its test runs from Jira Xray, using the issue key or numeric ID to remove it.
Delete a Test Execution issue permanently, including its test runs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| test_execution | 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, but they do not say what is destroyed. The description adds that the deletion is permanent and removes associated test runs, which is meaningful cascade information beyond the annotations.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the consequential detail (permanent, test runs included) is stated without padding.
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 the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The cascade behavior is covered; only irreversibility warnings and auth expectations are absent, which is a minor gap for a one-parameter delete.
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?
The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage (Jira issue key or numeric id), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the identifier format, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (Test Execution issue), and adds scope: the deletion is permanent and cascades to the test runs. This distinguishes it from siblings like xray_delete_test, xray_delete_test_plan, and xray_delete_test_set by resource.
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 such as xray_remove_tests_from_test_execution or xray_delete_test. No prerequisites, permissions, or confirmation requirements are stated, so the agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.