Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Yandex Tracker MCP

Yandex Tracker MCP

by aikts
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Delete Issue Comment

issue_delete_comment

Delete a comment from a Yandex Tracker issue by specifying the issue ID and comment ID to permanently remove it.

Instructions

Delete a comment from a Yandex Tracker issue

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": {
      "issue_id": "<issue_id>",
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>"
    },
    "name": "issue_delete_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issue_idYesIssue ID in the format '<project>-<id>', like 'SOMEPROJECT-1'
comment_idYesComment ID (integer).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.6.3

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation (false) already indicates a write operation, and the description's 'Delete' aligns. However, it adds no extra behavioral context such as permanence, permissions, or side effects, which is a gap for a destructive action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and resource. No superfluous information.

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?

Given the low complexity, complete schema, and presence of annotation and output schema, the description is sufficient for the agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage. It lacks some deeper behavioral context, but the overall package is complete.

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 clear descriptions for both issue_id and comment_id. The description adds no parameter detail, but this is acceptable because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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?

The description 'Delete a comment from a Yandex Tracker issue' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like issue_add_comment and issue_update_comment.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's action and context, making it obvious when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which prevents a 5.

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