GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_issue_delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a GitFlic issue by specifying its project and issue ID. This action is irreversible, so use it only when the issue must be removed.

Instructions

Delete an issue. Irreversible.

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_issue_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`raw`	No	Return the full, un-slimmed GitFlic response for THIS call (no token compression). Use when the default slim view dropped a field you need.
`project`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. "Irreversible" usefully reinforces permanence, but the description says nothing about what else is destroyed (comments, relations), what authorization is needed, or what a successful response looks like — gaps that matter for a destructive call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences with the destructive warning front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a destructive operation.

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, non-read-only mutation with two undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description should say at minimum what is deleted alongside the issue and what a caller must supply. Annotations cover the safety hint but not scope or parameter expectations, leaving real gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%: only `raw` is documented in the schema, while `project` and `id` have no described format or constraints. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so the coverage gap is left entirely unfilled.

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?

"Delete an issue" names a specific verb and resource, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like gitflic_issue_close or gitflic_issue_edit on the object being acted on. It stops short of explicitly contrasting delete with close, which is the nearest ambiguous alternative.

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 only usage signal is "Irreversible", which warns but does not guide. It never says when to delete versus closing or reopening an issue, nor what preconditions (ownership, permissions, project state) must hold before calling it.

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

Deploy Server