Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@illodev/taiga-mcp

@illodev/taiga-mcp

by illodev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

taiga_userstory_comment_delete

Delete a specific comment from a Taiga user story by providing the story ID and comment ID. Removes unwanted feedback or outdated remarks from the story's discussion.

Instructions

Delete a comment from a userstory.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>"
    },
    "name": "taiga_userstory_comment_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesuserstory ID
comment_idYesComment ID (from history)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without addressing permanence, authentication needs, or side effects. The verb 'delete' implies destructiveness, but the description does not confirm whether the action is irreversible or what happens on success.

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 wasted words. Every word ('Delete', 'comment', 'userstory') contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits return-value expectations, error conditions, and whether deletion is permanent. While the parameters are well-documented in the schema, the surrounding operational context is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('userstory ID' and 'Comment ID (from history)'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 userstory.' uses a specific verb (delete) and identifies a precise resource (a comment on a userstory), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like taiga_userstory_comment_create and taiga_task_comment_delete. The action and target are unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it only states the core action. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or reference to sibling comment-deletion tools for other entity types.

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