destroy_ticketcommentsSoft-delete (hide) a comment on a ticket; it stops appearing in the thread but is not permanently removed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| kwargs | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: true), the description adds valuable context by specifying that the comment is hidden but not permanently removed. This clarifies the exact effect on the thread and the reversible nature of the deletion. It does not describe return values or permissions, but with annotations present, it provides sufficient extra behavior.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential behavior with no wasted words. It front-loads the key verb and resource, then clarifies the nuance, making it highly concise and readable.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description covers the most important contextual aspect: the effect of the operation (soft-delete, hide but not permanent). It could mention reversibility or prerequisites, but the combination of annotations and schema fills the gap adequately, making it complete enough for an agent.
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?
The tool description does not mention parameters at all, but the input schema provides clear descriptions for both `submission_id` ('ID of the ticket submission') and `pk` ('The id of the ticketcomment'). Therefore, the schema itself handles parameter semantics, and the description adds nothing beyond that, aligning with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Soft-delete (hide) a comment on a ticket; it stops appearing in the thread but is not permanently removed.' It uses a specific verb ('soft-delete'), identifies the resource (comment on a ticket), and distinguishes this from a permanent delete, making its function unambiguous.
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?
The description gives clear context by explaining that this is a soft delete and not a permanent removal, which implies when it should be used (when hiding is sufficient) and when it should not (when permanent deletion is intended). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
Most tools are clearly scoped to a specific resource and action, but a few near-overlapping pairs (e.g., list_attachments vs list_taskattachments, create_tasktags vs add_tag_tasks) could cause misselection without close reading. Descriptions are detailed enough to resolve most ambiguity.
The dominant verb_noun CRUD pattern (create_, list_, retrieve_, update_, partial_update_, destroy_) is consistent and predictable. However, non-standard pluralizations (companys, resumeentrys, taskdependencys) and a handful of irregular names (task_assign_user, move_relate_to_tasks) introduce minor inconsistencies.
With 83 tools, this server is far beyond a well-scoped MCP surface, even for a feature-complete project management suite. The sheer volume will overwhelm agents and make selection inefficient, clearly falling into the extreme-mismatch range.
The toolset provides thorough lifecycle coverage across companies, projects, tasks, sprints, attachments, comments, dependencies, tags, reminders, resume entries, tickets, and users. Missing operations like company deletion or task-attachment creation appear intentional and are worked around via existing tools.