delete_commentPermanently remove one of your own ModDB comments by supplying its ID and setting confirm to true, preventing accidental deletions.
Delete one of your own comments (irreversible; requires confirm: true).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to delete; a guard against accidental deletions | |
| comment_id | Yes | Id of the comment to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: irreversibility and the confirm guard, plus the permission boundary that only your own comments can be deleted.
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?
One sentence with a parenthetical carrying the two critical facts (irreversible, confirm: true). No wasted words, and the destructive warning is front-loaded.
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?
For a two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'comment_id' and 'confirm' fully documented in the schema. The description restates the confirm requirement but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete ... comment') and adds an ownership scope ('one of your own comments') that separates it from edit_comment and reply_to_comment. It is clear and actionable, though it never names a sibling alternative explicitly, which is what a 5 would require.
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?
Gives a concrete usage condition — 'requires confirm: true' — and flags irreversibility, so the agent knows the preconditions before calling. It does not say when to prefer edit_comment over deleting, but for a terminal destructive action the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.