delete_comments_by_itemDelete comments associated with a specific item using its unique ID. Keep Mealie data organized by removing unwanted feedback from recipes or other entries.
Delete One
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | ||
| accept-language | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.20.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete One' conveys that the operation is destructive only by virtue of the verb, but it does not state irreversibility, permission requirements, cascading effects, or any side effects. The description adds no behavioral transparency beyond what the name already implies.
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?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It front-loads the delete intent but omits essential context that a few additional phrases could supply. The single phrase does not earn its place because it merely restates the tool's purpose without clarifying it.
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?
The tool is relatively simple with one required UUID parameter and an output schema, but the description still fails to explain what is deleted, how deletion behaves, or any constraints. The name and schema cover only the most basic facts. An agent has no context about the consequences of calling this tool or when it should be chosen over related comment tools.
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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention item_id, what it identifies, the format, or the optional accept-language header. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema fields.
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?
The description 'Delete One' adds almost nothing beyond the tool name and title, which already state 'Delete Comments By Item'. It implies a delete operation on a single comment but does not explicitly identify the resource, scope, or what 'one' refers to. It does not differentiate this tool from its siblings beyond the name itself.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_comments_by_item, update_comments_by_item, or list_comments. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or situations where this tool is preferred. The description is silent on usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.