jira_delete_linkDelete a Jira issue link using its numeric link ID. Remove outdated or incorrect issue relationships to keep Jira tickets accurate.
Delete a Jira issue link by its ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link_id | Yes | Numeric issue link ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1Input schema / properties / link_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Issue link ID to delete"New value: +"Numeric issue link ID to delete"Input schema / properties / link_id / minLengthRemoved value: -1Input schema / properties / link_id / patternAdded value: +"^\\d+$"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv0.6.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those structured fields—it does not state permanence, required permissions, or side effects of removing a link.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the action, the resource, and the identifier in the most compact form possible.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with fully covered annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits how to obtain a link ID and does not clarify that the deletion is irreversible, leaving small but real gaps for an agent.
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% and the single link_id parameter is fully documented with a numeric pattern. The phrase 'by its ID' in the description merely restates what the schema already specifies, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Delete a Jira issue link') with the lookup key ('by its ID'), making the operation immediately clear. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling jira_create_link, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jira_create_link or jira_delete_attachment, nor does it state prerequisites. Usage is left entirely to inference from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.