Jira Cloud MCP Server

delete_issue_property

Delete a specific property from a Jira issue by providing the issue key or ID and property key. Removes unwanted metadata to keep issue details clean.

Instructions

Delete issue property

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": {
      "issueIdOrKey": "<issueIdOrKey>",
      "propertyKey": "<propertyKey>"
    },
    "name": "delete_issue_property"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`propertyKey`	Yes	The key of the property.
`issueIdOrKey`	Yes	The key or ID of the issue.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete issue property' signals a destructive action but does not explain whether deletion is permanent, whether it fails for missing properties, or whether any related data or history is affected.

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 short—only three words—and contains no unnecessary text. However, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, since it omits even brief context about effects, usage, or prerequisites.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address failure modes, irreversibility, permission requirements, or how the response is structured, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke the tool confidently in an operational scenario.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are adequately described in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb (delete) and a specific resource (issue property), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_issue_property and set_issue_property. However, it does not define what an issue property is or clarify its relationship to issues, leaving some ambiguity for an agent encountering the term for the first time.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_issue_property or get_issue_property. The description does not mention prerequisites, side effects, or conditions that would make deletion appropriate.

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

Deploy Server