delete_commentDelete a comment (soft delete)
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": {
"commentId": "<commentId>"
},
"name": "delete_comment"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| commentId | Yes | Comment ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The 'soft delete' note adds genuinely useful non-obvious context: the record is retained rather than purged, which meaningfully qualifies 'destructive'. It stops short of stating permissions, side effects on parent article counters, or restorability.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and the most important qualifier. Nothing is wasted.
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 annotations already flagging destruction, the definition is minimally adequate. It omits error behavior (already-deleted comment), permission requirements, and whether the soft delete is reversible or eventually purged.
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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents commentId. The description adds no semantics about ID format, scope, or failure when the comment is already deleted. Baseline 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?
Specific verb+resource ('Delete a comment') with a clarifying parenthetical that it is a soft delete. It is distinguishable from the many other delete_* siblings only by resource name, which is sufficient here.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., reject_comment, or whether a restore path exists). The agent is left to infer the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.