Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

delete_issue_link

Destructive

Remove an existing relationship between two issues by deleting the issue link. Verify the link with list_issue_links or get_issue_link before deletion.

Instructions

Delete an issue link. Use this to remove an existing relationship between two issues; use list_issue_links or get_issue_link to verify the link first. The operation changes issue relationships, requires issue-edit permission, and returns the result or an error when the link is missing or access is denied.

Input Schema

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

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. Addedv2.1.45
  3. Removedv2.1.43
  4. Addedv2.1.18
  5. Removedv2.1.14
  6. Addedv2.1.11
  7. Removedv2.1.10
  8. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.9
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "issue_iid",
+  "issue_link_id"
+]
  9. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

While annotations declare destructiveHint and openWorldHint, the description goes further by stating the operation changes issue relationships, requires issue-edit permission, and returns an error when the link is missing or access is denied. These details add meaningful behavioral context beyond 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the verification recommendation, then permission and error behavior. Every sentence carries relevant information and there is no padding.

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 delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the mutation, permission requirement, and error conditions. It also tells the agent how to verify the link exists before deleting. It does not detail the exact response shape, but the 'returns the result or an error' statement is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool.

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 are already documented by the schema. The description adds the useful framing that an issue link is a relationship between two issues, but it does not explain individual parameter formats or the link ID lookup beyond naming list_issue_links/get_issue_link. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 states a precise verb and resource: 'Delete an issue link' and clarifies it removes 'an existing relationship between two issues.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_issue_links and get_issue_link by explicitly naming them as verification steps, and the destructive intent is clear.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: remove an existing relationship between two issues. It also directs the agent to list_issue_links or get_issue_link to verify the link first, providing a concrete workflow. It does not explicitly contrast with create_issue_link, but the 'remove existing relationship' phrasing makes the usage boundary clear enough.

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