@growi/mcp-server

Official

by growilabs

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

removeComment

Destructive

Remove a comment from a GROWI page using its comment ID.

Instructions

Remove a comment from a page in GROWI

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": {
      "commentId": "<commentId>"
    },
    "name": "removeComment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`appName`	No	GROWI app name to operate on (optional, uses default if not specified)
`commentId`	Yes	ID of the comment to remove

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.5.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, indicating the tool modifies state. The description does not add further behavioral context (e.g., whether removal is permanent, cascading effects, or error handling). Since annotations cover the key trait, the description's added value is minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word is necessary, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema) and the presence of annotations indicating destructive behavior, the description is complete enough. No additional context seems necessary for correct invocation.

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%—both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as clarifying the format of commentId or behavior when the comment does not exist.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and the target ('a comment from a page in GROWI'), which distinguishes it from siblings like addComment (adds) and getComments (lists). The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage (when you want to delete a comment) but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For example, it does not mention that the comment must exist or that removal is permanent, nor does it suggest using addComment to re-add if needed.

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