Project Tracker MCP Server

by spranab

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

delete_epic

Delete an epic and all associated stories using its UUID to remove the epic and linked records from project tracking.

Instructions

Delete an epic and all its associated stories

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": {
      "epic_id": "<epic_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_epic"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`epic_id`	Yes	UUID of the epic to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a critical trait: the delete cascades to all associated stories. However, it omits irreversibility, required permissions, and whether the deletion is permanent, which an agent needs for a destructive operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste that conveys both the action and the cascade effect. Appropriately sized for a one-parameter 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?

The cascade disclosure is the most important behavioral fact and it is present, but for a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the absence of any note on permanence or required permissions leaves an important gap.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('UUID of the epic to delete'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no parameter detail, so baseline 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?

Clear verb (Delete) + resource (epic), and it explicitly states scope: the epic plus all associated stories. An agent can distinguish it from delete_issue/delete_story by resource. It does not name a sibling directly, but the resource term is unambiguous.

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 delete_story or delete_issue, no prerequisites, and no warning conditions. The description describes what it does but not when an agent should choose it or what state must hold beforehand.

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