Deletes a Backlog issue by numeric ID or issue key, enabling removal of unwanted or resolved items from project tracking.
Deletes an issue
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issueId | No | The numeric ID of the issue (e.g., 12345) | |
| issueKey | No | The key of the issue (e.g., 'PROJ-123') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1v0.13.1v0.11.0Input schema / properties / organizationAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional organization name. Use list_organizations to inspect available organizations.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Input schema / properties / issueIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The numeric ID of the issue (e.g., 12345)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / issueIdOrKeyRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Issue ID or issue key",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "number"
- ]
-}Input schema / properties / issueKeyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The key of the issue (e.g., 'PROJ-123')",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "issueIdOrKey"
-]Does 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 covered structurally; the description adds nothing beyond that — no statement that deletion is permanent, whether comments/attachments go with it, or what permissions are needed. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes zero behavioral context.
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?
It is a three-word sentence with no waste, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency: there is no front-loaded scope, consequence, or identifier guidance an agent could act on.
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?
For a destructive, irreversible mutation the description is too thin. Critically, zero parameters are marked required and the description says nothing about supplying issueId or issueKey, leaving the call signature ambiguous despite a rich sibling set and no output schema.
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 both parameters (issueId, issueKey) are documented with examples, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, notably nothing about whether one or both identifiers are needed.
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?
"Deletes an issue" restates the tool name (delete_issue) without adding scope or specificity. It does not distinguish this from sibling destructive tools (delete_watching, delete_version, remove_related_issue), nor say whether deletion is permanent or what an issue encompasses.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g., closing vs. deleting, or using remove_related_issue instead). The agent must infer everything from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.