Rizamo

Delete a comment

delete_comment

DestructiveIdempotent

Use this to delete a comment from its network for good, with the replies under it; it cannot be undone, so hide_comment is the gentler choice for others' comments. Show the person the comment first unless they asked you to act on your own. Instagram and Facebook delete any comment on the account's posts; TikTok and Threads only the account's own; YouTube's are deleted in YouTube Studio, not here. Deleting a thread's first comment removes the whole thread from the inbox.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "messageId": "<messageId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The thread's id (`thr_`).
`messageId`	Yes	The comment's message id (`msg_`), from Get a thread.
`idempotencyKey`	No	Optional. A new unique string for each new action, such as a UUID. When a call timed out or failed and you send it again, send the same key: for 24 hours the same call gets the first one's answer instead of doing it twice.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`threadDeleted`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: permanence, cascading deletion of replies, per-network permission scope, YouTube not being handled here, and that deleting a thread's first comment removes the entire thread from the inbox. That last detail is a non-obvious side effect no structured field conveys.

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?

Front-loaded with the irreversible consequence, then alternatives, then network scoping. Every sentence carries content, though the network enumeration is dense and could be marginally tightened without loss.

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?

For a destructive single-resource mutation, the description covers reversibility, side effects, platform limitations, and social caution, while an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. An agent has everything needed to decide and act safely.

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%, with id, messageId and idempotencyKey all documented in-schema, including the msg_ prefix source. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("delete a comment from its network") and immediately scopes the blast radius ("with the replies under it"). It is clearly distinguished from the sibling hide_comment, which is named as the softer alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: prefer hide_comment for others' comments, confirm with the person first unless they asked for autonomous action. It also gives per-network eligibility rules (Instagram/Facebook vs TikTok/Threads vs YouTube) so an agent knows when this tool will fail or is the wrong surface.

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

All Rizamo tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?