Skip to main content
Glama
Wulnut
by Wulnut

delete_task_comment

Delete a specific comment from a project work item to remove outdated or incorrect feedback. Provide the issue and comment IDs; project and work item type are optional.

Instructions

删除指定评论。

Args:
    issue_id: 工作项 ID。
    comment_id: 评论 ID。
    project: 项目标识符(可选)。可以是项目名称或 project_key;不传则使用环境变量 FEISHU_PROJECT_KEY 指定的默认项目。
    work_item_type: 工作项类型名称(可选)。不传则使用默认类型。
    user_key: (可选) 飞书用户标识符 (X-USER-KEY)。

Returns:
    JSON 字符串。

    成功时(success=true)data 格式:
    {
      "issue_id": int,
      "comment_id": str
    }

    失败时返回纯文本错误信息(由 with_error_handling 统一处理),常见原因包括:
    - comment_id 不存在
    - 当前用户无权限删除该评论

Examples:
    delete_task_comment(issue_id=123, comment_id="c1")

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNo
issue_idYes
user_keyNo
comment_idYes
work_item_typeNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.2

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the success return format (data with issue_id and comment_id), the failure return format (plain-text error via with_error_handling), and common failure causes including a permission prerequisite. It stops short of explicitly stating the deletion is permanent/irreversible, but the disclosure is solid.

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?

The description is well-organized into Args, Returns, and Examples sections, with the core action stated up front. It is moderately long, but the length is justified given 0% schema coverage, since parameter semantics and return formats must live in the description. No filler or tautology.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 5-parameter delete operation with no annotations, the description is thorough: all parameters documented with defaults, success and failure return formats specified, common error causes listed, and a concrete example provided. Minor omissions — no explicit irreversibility warning and no cross-references to sibling comment tools — keep it from a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate — and it does. Every one of the 5 parameters gets meaning beyond its schema title: issue_id and comment_id are identified as the required keys, project documents name-or-key flexibility and env-var defaulting (FEISHU_PROJECT_KEY), work_item_type documents default-type behavior, and user_key is mapped to the X-USER-KEY header.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('删除指定评论' — delete specified comment), which is clear and accurate. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling comment tools like update_task_comment or add_task_comment, though the delete verb itself separates it from them.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description explains failure conditions (comment_id not found, no permission) but never states 'use this to remove a comment, use update_task_comment to edit one.' Usage context is only implied by the tool name and the example invocation.

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