Skip to main content
Glama

fc_delete_comment

Remove unwanted or inappropriate comments from your FluentCommunity platform by specifying the comment ID to maintain clean discussions and community standards.

Instructions

Delete a comment

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
comment_idYesThe ID of the comment to delete

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that executes the fc_delete_comment tool by sending a DELETE request to the WordPress fc-manager API endpoint for comments.
    fc_delete_comment: async (args: any) => {
      try {
        const response = await makeWordPressRequest('DELETE', `fc-manager/v1/comments/${args.comment_id}`);
        return { toolResult: { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(response, null, 2) }] } };
      } catch (error: any) {
        return { toolResult: { isError: true, content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Error: ${error.message}` }] } };
      }
    },
  • Zod schema defining the input validation for the fc_delete_comment tool, requiring a comment_id number.
    const deleteCommentSchema = z.object({
      comment_id: z.number().describe('The ID of the comment to delete')
    });
  • Registration of the fc_delete_comment tool in the fluentCommunityTools array, including name, description, and reference to input schema.
    {
      name: 'fc_delete_comment',
      description: 'Delete a FluentCommunity comment',
      inputSchema: { type: 'object', properties: deleteCommentSchema.shape }
    },
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a comment' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to associated data (e.g., replies). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 'Delete a comment' is extremely concise—three words that directly convey the action and target. It's front-loaded with no unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick comprehension. Every word earns its place without waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values. For a delete operation in a system with multiple deletion tools, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with comment_id clearly documented as 'The ID of the comment to delete'. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but with high schema coverage and only one parameter, this is acceptable. The baseline is 3 for high coverage, but the simplicity of a single parameter justifies a 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Delete a comment' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (comment), which is adequate for understanding the basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like fc_delete_post or fc_bulk_delete_posts, which perform similar deletion operations on different resources. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing comment_id from fc_list_comments), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like fc_update_comment or fc_bulk_delete_posts. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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/wplaunchify/fluent-community-mcp'

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