gh-board-mcp

delete_activity

Remove a draft item or activity from a GitHub Project board by providing its project number and item ID.

Instructions

Delete an activity (draft item) from a board.

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": {
      "projectNumber": "<projectNumber>",
      "itemId": "<itemId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`itemId`	Yes	Item id of the activity (from list_activities)
`projectNumber`	Yes	Number of the GitHub Project board

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully communicate behavioral traits. It states the tool deletes an activity but does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, reversible, or if it requires special permissions. For a destructive operation, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word is essential, delivering the core purpose efficiently. It is appropriately sized for a simple deletion tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but omits crucial context like return behavior (e.g., success/failure signals) and error dependencies. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps that could confuse an agent.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage) that explain their meaning (itemId from list_activities, projectNumber as board number). The description does not add further detail nor clarify relationships between parameters, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete'), the resource ('activity (draft item)'), and the location ('from a board'). This directly differentiates it from sibling tools (e.g., create_activity, move_activity, update_activity) which perform other operations.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the activity must exist), conditions where deletion is inappropriate, or suggest fallback tools like update_activity for archival. Lacking this context, an agent might misuse it.

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

Deploy Server