Skip to main content
Glama
rafadepaula

@rafadepaula/clickup-mcp

by rafadepaula
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

clickup_remove_task_dependency

Remove a waiting-on or blocking dependency between two ClickUp tasks by specifying the task and related task, so workflows no longer reflect outdated links.

Instructions

Remove a dependency between two tasks.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesType of dependency to remove: 'waiting_on' or 'blocking'.
task_idYesID of the task to remove the dependency from. Works with both regular task IDs and custom IDs (like 'DEV-1234'). Use clickup_search to find task ID by name if needed.
depends_onYesID of the task that was in the dependency relationship. Works with both regular task IDs and custom IDs (like 'DEV-1234').
workspace_idNoWorkspace ID (digits only). Only needed when you have multiple workspaces.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
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. It does not say this is an irreversible mutation, whether the dependency is fully deleted or just unlinked, whether permissions or task ownership are required, or what the call returns — all significant for a write operation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single clean sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. But it is under-specified rather than concise: the space saved could have carried the scope or sibling differentiation an agent needs.

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 no-annotation mutation tool with no output schema and four parameters, the description is too thin. The rich schema covers inputs, but nothing covers irreversibility, required permissions, or error behavior when no dependency exists.

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%, including the enum for 'type' and notes on custom IDs and the optional workspace_id, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Remove a dependency between two tasks") so the action is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling clickup_add_task_dependency or clarify how a dependency differs from a link (clickup_remove_task_link), which matters given both exist.

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 on when to use this versus add_task_dependency or remove_task_link, no mention of prerequisites (dependency must already exist), and no note on what happens if the dependency is absent. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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