Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

vibo-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

vibo_delete_song_comment

Destructive

Delete a comment on a song by providing its comment, song, section, and event IDs. Requires user confirmation, returning a preview and confirmToken for clients without elicitation support.

Instructions

Delete a comment on a song. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
songIdYesSong _id (from vibo_get_section_songs).
eventIdYesEvent id.
commentIdYesComment _id to delete.
sectionIdYesSection id.
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.3.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. Addedv1.5.3
  4. Removedv1.4.3
  5. First observedv1.3.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: the two-phase confirmation protocol, including that a repeat call with confirmToken is required when the client lacks elicitation, and the pointer to MCP_CONFIRM_MODE. That is context an agent could not recover from the structured fields alone.

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 sentences, verb+resource front-loaded, followed by the confirmation protocol. The nested parenthetical and colon-clause make the second sentence dense, but nothing is wasted or restated.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation contract well and the schema covers all five parameters. It omits consequences (e.g., effect on replies to the comment), authorization requirements, and any hint about the success response, which are the remaining gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, including a thorough in-schema explanation of confirmToken's two-step semantics, so the baseline is 3. The description contextualizes confirmToken within the phase-1/phase-2 flow but repeats rather than extends the schema's own text.

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?

"Delete a comment on a song" is a specific verb+resource and the phrase "on a song" implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling vibo_delete_section_comment. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the split from the resource noun alone.

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?

The description is dominated by how the call is sequenced (confirm prompt vs. preview+confirmToken) rather than when this tool is the right choice. It says nothing about preconditions such as being the comment author or a moderator, and never names an alternative tool. Usage context is only implied.

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