Delete a specific item from a board. Requires the project and board IDs; confirm with the user before executing this irreversible action.
Delete an item. Destructive — confirm with the user before calling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemId | Yes | Item id (from query_items / create_item) | |
| boardId | Yes | Board id (from list_boards / create_board) | |
| projectId | Yes | Project id (from list_projects / create_project) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.0Input schema / properties / boardId / descriptionAdded value: +"Board id (from list_boards / create_board)"Input schema / properties / itemId / descriptionAdded value: +"Item id (from query_items / create_item)"Input schema / properties / projectId / descriptionAdded value: +"Project id (from list_projects / create_project)"v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'Destructive' and the confirmation requirement beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true). It clearly signals the side effect of permanent deletion, aligning with the annotation.
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?
The description is brief and to the point, with no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the purpose and the key warning in two short sentences.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does and the required user confirmation. It could mention permanence explicitly, but the destructive hint and warning make it sufficiently clear.
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?
The description does not describe the parameters, but the schema already provides detailed descriptions for all three with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete an item') with a specific verb and object, and the destructive warning adds clarity. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like create_item or update_item.
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 explicit guidance to 'confirm with the user before calling', which is a clear precondition for use. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the destructive nature implies this is for intentional deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.