Add a comment to a task by ref.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| session | No | A short name for this session or window, e.g. "Claude Code c--ws 33edc07d". Pass the same one on every call. Every window you open shares this connection, so without it fenbs shows only the connection name and cannot tell your windows apart. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / sessionAdded value: +{
+ "description": "A short name for this session or window, e.g. \"Claude Code c--ws 33edc07d\". Pass the same one on every call. Every window you open shares this connection, so without it fenbs shows only the connection name and cannot tell your windows apart.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say comments are append-only and immutable (note there is no update/delete comment sibling), whether the ref must resolve to an existing task, or what a failed ref does. With annotations present the bar is lower, but this description contributes no behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and target come first. It is efficient, though its brevity is close to under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description would need to explain what is returned or confirmed, and it does not. Combined with undocumented ref/body parameters and no 'session' explanation in the description, an agent lacks enough information to call this confidently beyond the obvious case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, with 'ref' and 'body' undocumented in the schema. The phrase 'by ref' weakly implies ref identifies the task and 'comment' implies body is the text, but the format of ref (item id, task key, slug) is never clarified, so the description only marginally compensates for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Add a comment to a task') and identifies the target via 'ref'. It is distinguishable from siblings like fenbs_add_context_note or fenbs_add_lesson by naming 'task', though it never explains how a comment differs from those note/lesson siblings, which is the nearest ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No indication of when to comment versus using fenbs_add_context_note, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer the intended context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.