Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Redmine MCP Server

Redmine MCP Server

by onozaty
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

deleteAttachment

Delete a specified attachment from Redmine by providing its ID and response format. Removes the file permanently to clean up resources.

Instructions

Delete attachment

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pathParams": "<pathParams>"
    },
    "name": "deleteAttachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathParamsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what the name implies and what annotations already provide. The annotation readOnlyHint:false signals mutation, and 'Delete' confirms it, but there is no disclosure of permanence, side effects, or required permissions. The description does not contradict annotations, but it also adds nothing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely brief (two words), but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It lacks any informative content, making it ineffective despite being short.

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

Completeness1/5

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

The tool has a nested object parameter with a required format enum, yet the description explains nothing about the operation's effects, return value, or error conditions. Given the complexity of the schema and the absence of an output schema, this description is critically incomplete for an agent to call correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description offers no explanation of parameters. The required 'format' parameter is particularly puzzling (why does deletion need a response format?), but this is not addressed. The agent receives no help understanding what values to provide.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb ('Delete') and resource ('attachment'), which makes the primary purpose obvious. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'updateAttachment' or 'downloadAttachment', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or any conditions for deletion. With many sibling tools, this omission leaves an agent without direction on selection criteria.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools