Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

delete_issue

Destructive

Permanently delete a GitLab issue using its project ID and internal ID. Use only after confirming removal; otherwise, update_issue closes or edits without deleting.

Instructions

Delete an issue. Use this only after confirming the issue and intended permanent removal; use update_issue to close or edit an issue without deleting it. The operation permanently removes issue data, requires delete permission, and returns the deletion result or a missing-resource, permission, or policy error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
issue_iidYesThe internal ID of the project issue
project_idYesProject ID or URL-encoded path

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.66
    • addedInput schema / properties / jmespath
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv2.1.18
  3. Removedv2.1.14
  4. Addedv2.1.11
  5. Removedv2.1.10
  6. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.9
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "issue_iid"
+]
  7. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description specifies permanent data removal, the need for delete permission, and the categories of errors that may be returned (missing-resource, permission, policy). This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the action and the key qualifier; the second provides usage routing and behavioral warnings. Every clause earns its place and the most critical scoping information is front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive operation with full schema coverage and the key annotation already present, the description covers purpose, when to use, permanence, permission requirement, and possible errors. It does not detail the exact shape of the deletion result, but with no output schema that is not strictly required. Slightly more could be said about the result payload, hence 4 rather than 5.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters and their descriptions already carry the full semantic load. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific explanation, so a baseline of 3 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 opens with the specific verb-resource pair 'Delete an issue,' and goes further to contrast with `update_issue`, making the tool's scope unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from the many issue-related siblings such as `get_issue`, `create_issue`, and `update_issue`.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: only after confirming the issue and intended permanent removal. It explicitly names the alternative, `update_issue`, for closing or editing without deletion. This leaves no room for an agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools