jira-alerts-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Permanently delete a JSM alert

jsm_delete_alert

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently remove a JSM alert and its entire record, including notes, activity log, and attachments. Use only when data must not persist, after explicit user confirmation.

Instructions

Permanently delete a JSM alert and everything recorded on it.

This is almost never the right tool. Closing an alert with jsm_close_alert takes it out of the open queue and keeps the record: who was paged, what they tried, when it resolved. Deleting throws that away, for everyone, with no undo — the notes, the activity log, the attachments and the timing all go with it. A closed alert costs nothing to keep.

The cases that justify it are narrow: an alert containing credentials or personal data that must not persist, or a flood of alerts from a misconfigured integration that never represented anything real.

Args:

alert_id (string): the full alert id (not the tinyId)

Returns: { "requestId": string, "result": string, "alert_id": string }

IMPORTANT: this action is asynchronous. Verify with jsm_get_request_status using the returned requestId.

Before calling this, read the alert back with jsm_get_alert and show the user what they are about to lose — its message, its state and how many notes it carries — and get an explicit yes. Never call it to tidy up, to clear a queue, or in a loop over search results.

Constraints and errors:

Needs delete:ops-alert:jira-service-management, a separate grant from write:ops-alert. A token that can close alerts usually cannot delete them, and that is a deliberate configuration rather than a problem to work around.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`alert_id`	Yes	Full alert id, e.g. '9b251e07-73c9-4907-9996-8cb53a6a20d0-1704440650350'. This is NOT the short tinyId shown in the JSM UI — get the full id from jsm_list_alerts first.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	No
`alert_id`	Yes
`requestId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.0Sep 12, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

Addedv2.0.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates exactly what is lost (notes, activity log, attachments, timing), states there is no undo and the loss is global, discloses the asynchronous nature and the verification path via jsm_get_request_status, and calls out the separate delete:ops-alert:jira-service-management grant. That last point is a high-value behavioral disclosure an agent could not infer from the schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Long, but front-loaded with the decisive warning ('This is almost never the right tool') and organized into purpose, justification cases, args, async note, and constraints. Every section earns its place for an irreversible operation, though the safety argument is restated enough that it could be trimmed slightly.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Return values are covered by the output schema and safety by the annotations, so the description need not repeat them; it instead supplies the missing pieces: the destruction scope, the async verification step, the required scope, and the pre-call confirmation workflow. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.

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 the schema already documents alert_id with a full example and the tinyId warning, so the schema carries the weight. The description's 'not the tinyId' remark is redundant with the schema field description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a JSM alert and everything recorded on it') with an explicit scope statement about what is destroyed. It also draws a sharp line against the closest sibling, jsm_close_alert, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use (credentials/PII that must not persist, or a flood of alerts from a misconfigured integration) and when-not (never to tidy up, clear a queue, or loop over search results). It names the alternative jsm_close_alert and the condition that selects it, plus a required pre-flight workflow of reading the alert back and getting an explicit yes.

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