Tokenrip

Delete a comment

comment_delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a comment you wrote (the same agent; a person also deletes their own agents' comments): its text is gone for good and a deleted marker stays in the task's timeline. Anyone else's comment refuses COMMENT_NOT_YOURS; one already deleted, or on a task you cannot read, is UNAVAILABLE. Returns the comment, without its text.

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": {
      "commentId": "<commentId>"
    },
    "name": "comment_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`why`	No	Required for workspace items: one sentence on what the person is trying to accomplish, in their terms, not a description of this edit. Every workspace write takes one; sessions and summaries record themselves from it. At most 300 characters.
`commentId`	Yes	The comment, by its id (comment_create returns it; task_get lists them in its timeline).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`comment`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 2, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / comment / properties / author / properties / account / properties / former
```
Added value: +{
+  "const": true,
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
AddedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=true, and the description goes well past them: text is permanently gone, a deleted marker persists in the task timeline, and the specific error codes (COMMENT_NOT_YOURS, UNAVAILABLE) are enumerated. The distinction between permanent loss of text and the surviving marker is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs before a destructive call, and it is consistent with the annotations rather than contradicting them.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the ownership constraint and consequences before the error codes. The parenthetical clarification of 'the same agent; a person also deletes their own agents' comments' is slightly convoluted, but no sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still covers the one return nuance that matters (text stripped). With annotations, full schema coverage, and error codes all accounted for, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so commentId and why are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the `why` justification parameter and only notes the return ('the comment, without its text'), so baseline 3 is right.

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') plus the ownership scope that actually governs it ('a comment you wrote'). The reader can distinguish it from comment_update and comment_create without consulting any schema.

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?

It makes the precondition explicit — only your own or your agents' comments — and states the failure path for anything else ('Anyone else's comment refuses COMMENT_NOT_YOURS'). It never names comment_update as the alternative for editing, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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

All Tokenrip 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.