Jira MCP

delete_comment

Remove a comment from a Jira ticket permanently. Use comment IDs from get_ticket with include_comments; this action cannot be undone.

Instructions

Delete a comment from a Jira ticket. This cannot be undone. Comment IDs are shown by get_ticket with include_comments.

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>",
      "ticket_id": "<ticket_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ticket_id`	Yes	Jira issue key, e.g. GEM-234
`comment_id`	Yes	Comment ID, e.g. 10001

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.7.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: the deletion 'cannot be undone'. It does not mention required permissions, error behavior on invalid IDs, or side effects, but the irreversibility warning is the critical disclosure for a destructive tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the irreversible-destruction warning. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 low-complexity 2-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, danger, and ID sourcing. It could add permission requirements or failure behavior to be fully complete, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by telling the agent where comment_id values come from (get_ticket with include_comments). That is information the schema's 'Comment ID, e.g. 10001' does not convey.

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 (Delete) and resource (a comment from a Jira ticket), which cleanly separates it from the sibling add_comment and update_comment tools. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive nature rather than stated; there is no when/when-not guidance versus update_comment or alternatives. The pointer to get_ticket with include_comments is a helpful prerequisite but is framed around obtaining an ID, not around when to choose this tool.

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