xray_delete_test_planPermanently delete a Jira Test Plan issue by specifying its issue key or numeric ID. Use this to remove obsolete or incorrect test plans from Xray Cloud.
Delete a Test Plan issue permanently.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| test_plan | 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, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description's only addition is the word 'permanently', which usefully reinforces irreversibility but says nothing about cascading effects on associated test executions or required permissions.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise for a destructive operation.
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?
With one fully documented parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. The only missing element is a note on side effects for related executions.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and there is a single parameter, with the schema already documenting accepted formats (Jira issue key or numeric id). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 Plan issue') with the scope qualifier 'permanently'. It is distinguishable from siblings like xray_delete_test and xray_delete_test_set by naming the exact entity, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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, nor on prerequisites or when deletion is inappropriate. For a destructive, irreversible operation, the absence of any 'when-not' context is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.