Dutify

pm_add_comment_reaction

Destructive

Add an emoji reaction to a task comment. reactionType is the emoji code (e.g. "thumbs_up", "heart", "smile"). Each user may add at most one reaction of each reactionType per comment. Requires COMMENT-level access on the task. API-key scope: tasks:write.

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": {
      "taskIdentifier": "<taskIdentifier>",
      "commentIdentifier": "<commentIdentifier>",
      "reactionType": "<reactionType>"
    },
    "name": "pm_add_comment_reaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`account`	No	Multi-account auth only: name of the account from X-Dutify-Accounts to use for this call. Ignored in single-account mode (X-API-Key header). When multiple accounts are configured and this is omitted, the call fails with ACCOUNT_REQUIRED listing the available names. list_accounts never requires a selection.
`workspace`	No	Workspace identifier or exact name for this call. Overrides the configured workspace. For personal keys, discover candidates with list_workspaces and select explicitly. Does not change other calls or expand a workspace key's access.
`reactionType`	Yes	Emoji code, e.g. "thumbs_up", "heart"
`taskIdentifier`	Yes	Task identifier (tsk_…)
`commentIdentifier`	Yes	Comment identifier (cmt_…)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only carry the generic write/destructive/idempotency flags; the description adds real behavioral context the agent would otherwise lack: the COMMENT-level access requirement, the `tasks:write` API-key scope, and the per-user uniqueness cap that determines whether a repeat call succeeds or fails. It never says what a successful response contains, but the mutation prerequisites are covered.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then parameter meaning, then the business rule, then auth requirements. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description could say what a successful call returns (e.g. the created reaction), but for a small single-purpose mutation tool it covers action, parameter format, uniqueness constraint, and auth. The remaining gap is minor.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns a bump by defining reactionType's format and adding the 'one reaction of each type per comment' constraint, which is a semantic rule about the parameter that the schema does not express.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add an emoji reaction to a task comment') and immediately disambiguates the ambiguous parameter ('reactionType is the emoji code'). It is clearly distinguishable from pm_remove_comment_reaction and pm_list_comment_reactions despite similar naming.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is implied by the access and scope requirements, and the one-reaction-per-type rule signals what happens on repeat calls, but there is no explicit routing to siblings such as pm_remove_comment_reaction for undoing a reaction or pm_list_comment_reactions for checking what already exists.

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

All Dutify tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?