Deletes a story from the project tracker using its UUID. Removes outdated or incorrect stories to maintain accurate project data.
Delete a story
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| story_id | Yes | UUID of the story to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about irreversibility, permission requirements, cascade effects on child records (e.g. linked issues or contexts), or error behavior when the story_id does not exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three words, fully front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is efficient, though so terse that it leaves the behavioral gaps noted elsewhere unfilled.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive, irreversible operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it does not warn that deletion is permanent, mention permissions, or describe what happens to dependent records. The simple one-parameter schema limits the damage, but a delete tool needs more than this.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% — the single story_id parameter is already documented as the UUID of the story to delete. The description adds no format or constraint information 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (a story), so the action is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling delete tools (delete_issue, delete_project, delete_epic, delete_summary, delete_context) beyond the resource name already implied by the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites, conditions, or confirmations required. Usage is only inferred from the tool name and the fact that a story_id must be supplied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.