Skip to main content
Glama

delete_work_item

Remove a work item from Azure DevOps by specifying its ID. This action permanently deletes the item from the project.

Instructions

Deletes a work item by its ID.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
work_item_idYesThe ID of the work item to delete.

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler that dispatches the delete_work_item call to the AzureDevOpsClient and formats the success response.
    elif name == "delete_work_item":
        delete_result = self.client.delete_work_item(**arguments)
        return {
            "message": f"Work item {arguments['work_item_id']} has been deleted successfully.",
            "deleted_date": delete_result.deleted_date.isoformat() if delete_result.deleted_date else None,
            "deleted_by": delete_result.deleted_by.display_name if delete_result.deleted_by else None
        }
  • Input schema and tool definition for delete_work_item, registered in the tools list.
    types.Tool(
        name="delete_work_item",
        description="Deletes a work item by its ID.",
        inputSchema={
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {
                "work_item_id": {
                    "type": "integer", 
                    "description": "The ID of the work item to delete."
                },
            },
            "required": ["work_item_id"],
            "additionalProperties": False
        }
    ),
  • Client method that performs the actual deletion by calling the Azure DevOps Work Item Tracking client API.
    def delete_work_item(self, work_item_id):
        return self.work_item_tracking_client.delete_work_item(id=work_item_id)
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action ('Deletes') but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, side effects (e.g., on related comments or states), or error conditions. This is inadequate 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource efficiently, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, return values, or error handling, leaving critical gaps for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'work_item_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the ID is used for deletion, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Deletes') and resource ('a work item by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools like 'delete_wiki_page' beyond specifying the resource type, which is a minor gap.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the work item ID), consequences of deletion, or when to choose this over other work item operations like 'update_work_item' or 'get_work_item' for verification.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/xrmghost/mcp-azure-devops'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server