Done Bear MCP

Remove Comment

comment_remove

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a comment. This is permanent — a comment has no trash and cannot be restored — and it removes it for the whole workspace, so confirm with the user first. Authors may delete their own; deleting a teammate's takes workspace owner or admin.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`task`	Yes	Workspace-scoped task number, encoded as a string
`context`	Yes	Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."
`workspace`	No	Workspace id, slug, or name
`comment_id`	Yes	Comment UUID or prefix (>= 4 chars)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`ok`	Yes
`action`	Yes
`taskId`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that deletion is permanent, that there is no trash or restore path, that it applies to the whole workspace, and that permission rules vary by author vs admin. This gives the agent a strong sense of consequences before invoking the tool.

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 compact and front-loaded, with each sentence contributing distinct value: what the tool does, what the consequence is, and who has permission. No fluff or redundant wording is present.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the annotations, the destructive nature, the permission constraints, and the confirmation requirement, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool. The output schema exists, so the return shape is handled elsewhere.

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 baseline is a 3. The description does not add any deeper explanation of comment_id, task, or context parameters beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to because the schema is complete.

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 a specific action, 'Delete a comment,' which immediately identifies the verb and resource. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like comment_add, comment_edit, and comment_list by establishing deletion as the core purpose.

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 clear context: this is for permanently deleting comments, and it instructs the agent to confirm with the user first. It does not name explicit alternative tools or list when-not-to-use conditions, but the intent is unambiguous given the sibling set.

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

All Done Bear MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are cleanly separated by resource and action, and each family (checklist, comment, label, project, task) follows the same shape. The main blur is between search and task_list's optional search filter, and convenience tools like checklist_done overlap with checklist_edit.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant convention is snake_case noun_verb (task_add, checklist_list, comment_remove), with consistent verb families across resources. A few outliers like get_context, search, and guide break the pattern, but overall the naming is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, this is a heavy surface for a task-management server and exceeds the 25-tool threshold. Several tools are convenience variants (task_done vs task_bulk_done, checklist_done vs checklist_edit) that could be consolidated or represented as parameters.

Completeness4/5

The core task lifecycle is well covered: create, show, edit, complete, reopen, archive, list, assign, and bulk operations, with full checklist and comment CRUD. Notable gaps are label deletion/renaming, project deletion, and search being limited to tasks, but these are minor for the apparent product scope.

Resources

Need Help?