Deletes a version from a Backlog project using its version ID, with optional project ID or key to target the correct project.
Deletes a version from a project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The numeric ID of the version to delete (e.g., 67890) | |
| projectId | No | The numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345) | |
| projectKey | No | The key of the project (e.g., 'PROJECT') |
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"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of irreversibility, cascade effects on issues linked to the version, or required permissions. It merely restates the name.
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 wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information it actually conveys, though that information is thin.
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 mutation tool, the definition leaves critical gaps: it doesn't explain whether projectId or projectKey is required to scope the deletion (only id is required in the schema), nor what happens to entities attached to the deleted version. With no output schema and annotations carrying only the safety profile, the description should do more.
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 coverage is 100%, so each of id, projectId, and projectKey is already documented with examples. The description adds no parameter meaning, which is acceptable given full schema coverage but warrants only the baseline score.
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 and resource ('Deletes a version from a project'), but 'version' is ambiguous given sibling tools like get_version_milestone_list and update_version_milestone; the description never clarifies whether it deletes a version milestone or a project version. An agent can't confidently distinguish this from version-milestone operations.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named. It also doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., whether the version must be unreleased or empty), which matters for a destructive operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.