HAOps MCP Server

haops_delete_issue

Delete an issue from a HAOps project using project slug and issue UUID. No confirmation required because issues are leaf nodes.

Instructions

Delete an issue from a HAOps feature. No confirmation needed (issues are leaf nodes with no children).

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": {
      "projectSlug": "<projectSlug>",
      "issueId": "<issueId>"
    },
    "name": "haops_delete_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`issueId`	Yes	UUID of the issue to delete
`verbose`	No	If true, return the full API response instead of the compact summary (default: false)
`projectSlug`	Yes	The project slug (URL identifier)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.8.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description adds some behavioral context by noting that issues are leaf nodes and no confirmation is needed. It does not disclose other important behaviors like whether the operation is reversible, required permissions, or potential error conditions.

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?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence with a parenthetical addition. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes value. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but does not explain return values, error handling, or the role of the verbose parameter. It is adequate for a simple deletion but lacks depth.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the action (delete), the target (issue), and the context (from a HAOps feature). It distinguishes this tool from siblings that delete other entities like features or modules, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides a critical usage hint: 'No confirmation needed (issues are leaf nodes with no children),' indicating safe deletion without cascading effects. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or suggest alternative tools for related tasks.

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

Deploy Server