TaskLite MCP

delete_comment

Destructive

Remove a comment from an item thread. Requires projectId, itemId, and commentId to permanently delete the specified comment.

Instructions

Delete a comment from an item thread. Destructive — confirm with the user before calling. Needs projectId, itemId and the commentId.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "itemId": "<itemId>",
      "commentId": "<commentId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`itemId`	Yes	Item id (from query_items / create_item)
`commentId`	Yes	Comment id (from list_comments / add_comment)
`projectId`	Yes	Project id (from list_projects / create_project)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.13.0Sep 8, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / commentId / description
```
Added value: +"Comment id (from list_comments / add_comment)"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / itemId / description
```
Added value: +"Item id (from query_items / create_item)"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / projectId / description
```
Added value: +"Project id (from list_projects / create_project)"
```
First observedv0.7.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotation already marks this as destructive, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral instruction: confirm with the user before calling. It also emphasizes that all three IDs are required. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: what it does, the destructive warning, and the required IDs. There is no redundant or filler text.

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?

For a simple delete mutation with only three required parameters, rich schema descriptions, and a destructiveHint annotation, the description is complete. It covers the necessary IDs, the user-confirmation requirement, and the destructive nature, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with clear provenance descriptions (e.g., commentId from list_comments / add_comment). The description merely lists the parameter names without adding new semantic information, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given full 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 clearly states a specific action ('Delete a comment from an item thread') and identifies the exact resource and scope. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like list_comments, add_comment, and update_comment.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when the tool should be used: whenever a comment needs to be deleted, and it explicitly notes that the user should confirm before calling because the operation is destructive. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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