Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
传承·交大 MCP

传承·交大 MCP

by Flagwill
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

share_delete_comment

Destructive

Deletes one of your own comments by comment ID after confirmation, so you can remove mistaken or unwanted comments from the platform.

Instructions

删除自己的评论。confirm=true 执行。

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": {
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>"
    },
    "name": "share_delete_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNo确认用户已授权此次操作后设为 true
comment_idYes平台对象 ID，正整数

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the useful 'own comment' authorization boundary plus the confirm=true execution gate. However it does not disclose irreversibility, whether replies cascade, or what happens without confirm, which a destructive tool warrants.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Efficient, though the terseness is close to under-specification for a destructive tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The output schema and 100% parameter coverage reduce the description's burden, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still, a destructive deletion tool benefits from noting irreversibility or cascade behavior, which is absent.

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%, with both comment_id and confirm fully described in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the confirm gate but adds nothing about comment_id semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb (删除) and resource (自己的评论), clearly distinguishing it from share_delete_material and the read-oriented share_list_comments siblings. The 'own' scope qualifier is a useful differentiator, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'confirm=true 执行' tells the agent how the call must be made but not when to choose deletion over an alternative (e.g., report_comment for someone else's content). Usage context is implied from the scope word 'own', leaving the when-not scenario unstated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools