Memory Journal MCP Server

Delete Kanban Item

delete_kanban_item

Remove an item from a GitHub Kanban board without closing or deleting the underlying Issue or PR, keeping project tracking clean while preserving the source record.

Instructions

Remove an item from a GitHub Kanban board cleanly. This untethers it from the project but does NOT close or delete the underlying Issue/PR.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	No	Repository name - LEAVE EMPTY to auto-detect
`owner`	No	Project owner - LEAVE EMPTY to auto-detect
`item_id`	No	The project item ID to remove (from get_kanban_board)
`use_test_db`	No
`project_number`	No	GitHub Project number (optional if repo is registered)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	Error code (e.g. VALIDATION_ERROR, INTERNAL_ERROR)
`error`	No	Human-readable error message
`itemId`	No
`details`	No	Additional error context
`category`	No	Error category (validation, query, connection, internal)
`suggestion`	No	Suggested fix for the error
`recoverable`	No	Whether the error is recoverable
`projectNumber`	No
`aggregated_errors`	No	Details of individual errors in a multi-step operation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv9.0.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds vital behavioral context beyond the annotations by defining 'clean removal' as 'untethering' the item and explicitly stating it does not close or delete the underlying GitHub Issue/PR.

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 highly concise, with each sentence serving a distinct and necessary function in defining the tool's scope and constraints.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The definition is highly complete for a high-level operation, providing the agent with the exact behavioral contract regarding underlying GitHub entities (Issues/PRs) that other tools might affect.

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?

Though the schema is 80% covered, the description adds necessary semantic value by clarifying the outcome of the action: the Kanban link is severed, not the associated GitHub resource.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('Kanban item') and provides critical contextual detail by clarifying it is specific to the GitHub project and board structure.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

While it doesn't list competing tools, it provides strong negative guidelines by stating what the tool does NOT do, which is essential context for an agent deciding whether to use it instead of a direct issue deletion tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server