Skip to main content
Glama
rrvrs

jira-alerts-mcp

by rrvrs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Delete a note from a JSM alert

jsm_delete_alert_note
DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently remove a note from a JSM alert timeline to erase content that should never have been posted, such as exposed credentials or personal data. No undo, so confirm first.

Instructions

Permanently remove a note from a JSM alert's timeline.

Reach for this only for a note that should never have been written — a pasted credential, someone's personal information, a note on the wrong alert. Not for a note that turned out to be wrong: that is what jsm_update_alert_note is for, and being able to see what a responder believed at the time is most of what the timeline is worth.

Args:

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

  • note_id (string): id of the note to delete, from jsm_list_alert_notes

Returns: { "deleted": true, "note_id": string }

There is no undo, and no confirmation step at the API. The note is gone the moment this returns. Confirm with the user before calling it, and quote the note's text back to them first so they are deleting the thing they think they are.

Unlike most alert writes this is synchronous: the API answers 204 with no body, so there is no requestId to verify.

Constraints and errors:

  • Needs delete:ops-alert:jira-service-management, which is a separate grant from write:ops-alert. A token that can edit notes may still get 403 here.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
note_idYesId of the note to delete, from jsm_list_alert_notes. Not the note's text.
alert_idYesFull 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deletedYes
note_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.0
    • 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"
  2. Addedv2.0.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint/idempotentHint, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: there is no undo or confirmation step at the API, the call is synchronous and returns 204 with no body (so no requestId to poll), and it requires a separate delete:ops-alert:... grant that a write:ops-alert token may lack (403 risk). It also prescribes quoting the note text back before calling.

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?

Front-loads the destructive action, then the usage rule, then the irreversible/no-undo warning, then args, returns, and constraints. Every sentence carries operative information — the 204/no-requestId and separate-permission notes are not padding.

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?

For a destructive, permission-gated mutation this is complete: irreversibility, required grant, failure mode (403), argument sourcing (from jsm_list_alert_notes), and a return shape are all covered. An output schema exists, so the brief Returns line is sufficient rather than redundant.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both parameters, including the full-id-vs-tinyId distinction and that note_id is not the note text. The description only restates these, adding no syntax or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 remove a note from a JSM alert's timeline') and explicitly distinguishes the operation from jsm_update_alert_note, so an agent can separate the two destructive-ish note tools without reading 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('only for a note that should never have been written — a pasted credential, personal information, wrong alert') and an explicit when-not with the named alternative ('a note that turned out to be wrong: that is what jsm_update_alert_note is for'). The rationale for the distinction is even supplied.

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