vimeo-mcp

Delete a comment from a video

delete_comment

Destructive

Remove a comment from a Vimeo video by providing the video ID and comment ID; confirmation is required.

Instructions

Delete a comment from a video. Requires confirm: true.

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": {
      "video_id": "<video_id>",
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	No	Set true only when the user asked for exactly this action.
`video_id`	Yes	Video id.
`comment_id`	Yes	Comment id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv2.0.0Oct 6, 2026

removedInput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
removedInput schema / properties / confirm / default
```
Removed value: -false
```

changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description

Previous value: -"Set true to proceed."New value: +"Set true only when the user asked for exactly this action."

First observedv1.0.1Sep 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds a specific behavioral requirement — that the confirm flag must be set to true — which is not present in the annotations and is important for correct invocation. However, it does not elaborate on permanence or permission needs, so it falls short of maximal transparency.

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 two short sentences with zero wasted words, and the confirmation requirement is front-loaded alongside the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple destructive operation.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity, full schema coverage, and annotations that already flag destructiveness and non-idempotency, the description covers the essential action and the critical confirm requirement. The only meaningful gap is the lack of usage guidance relative to sibling comment tools, but the core invocation needs are met.

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%, with every parameter documented, so the schema already carries the full burden of parameter explanation. The description mentions only the confirm parameter and adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('comment from a video'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like add_comment, edit_comment, and list_comments. An agent can immediately tell what the tool does without opening the schema.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edit_comment for modifications) and does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only restates the action and a confirmation requirement, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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