Skip to main content
Glama

delete_comment

Remove unwanted comments from Figma files to maintain clean design collaboration. Specify file key and comment ID to delete specific feedback.

Instructions

Delete a comment from a Figma file

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileKeyYesThe key of the file to delete a comment from
comment_idYesID of the comment to delete

Implementation Reference

  • Core implementation of the delete_comment tool: sends DELETE request to Figma API to remove the specified comment from the file.
    async deleteComment(args: DeleteCommentArgs) {
      const { fileKey, comment_id } = args;
      
      return this.api.makeRequest(`/files/${fileKey}/comments/${comment_id}`, 'DELETE');
    }
  • src/index.ts:273-290 (registration)
    Tool registration in the MCP server: defines the 'delete_comment' tool name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: 'delete_comment',
      description: 'Delete a comment from a Figma file',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          fileKey: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The key of the file to delete a comment from'
          },
          comment_id: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'ID of the comment to delete'
          }
        },
        required: ['fileKey', 'comment_id']
      },
    },
  • TypeScript interface defining the input arguments for the delete_comment tool.
    export interface DeleteCommentArgs {
      fileKey: string;
      comment_id: string;
    }
  • Dispatch handler in the main MCP server that routes 'delete_comment' calls to the FilesHandler.
    case 'delete_comment': {
      const args = this.validateArgs<DeleteCommentArgs>(request.params.arguments, ['fileKey', 'comment_id']);
      const result = await this.filesHandler.deleteComment(args);
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't address critical aspects like whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are needed, error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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, focused sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple destructive operation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address the behavioral implications of deletion, error handling, permission requirements, or what happens after successful execution. Given the complexity and risk profile of a delete operation, more contextual information is needed.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but provides no extra value for parameter understanding.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a comment from a Figma file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'post_comment' beyond the obvious verb difference, missing an opportunity to clarify its specific role in the comment management workflow.

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 or what prerequisites might be required. With sibling tools like 'get_comments' and 'post_comment' available, there's no indication of workflow sequencing (e.g., 'use get_comments first to identify comment_id') or permission considerations for deletion operations.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/smithery-ai/mcp-figma'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server