Skip to main content
Glama

Dock

by ai.trydock

add_comment

Post a new comment on any target in a workspace: a row, a cell, a doc text range, an html element, an entire surface, or the workspace itself. Polymorphic target shape mirrors the REST POST /api/workspaces/:slug/comments. For threading, pass parentId to hang the new comment as a reply (the server flattens nested replies to single depth and auto-unresolves a resolved parent). Mentions are an array of { kind: 'user'|'agent', id, label } triples; the server validates each mention's access to the workspace before accepting. Fires comment.added (and comment.unresolved when a reply reopens a resolved parent). For replies to existing comments where you don't want to reconstruct the target, prefer reply_to_comment which derives the target from the parent. Editor or commenter role required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesComment body (plain text or markdown). 1-5000 chars.
slugYesThe workspace slug ('my-workspace' or 'my-org/my-workspace').
targetYesPolymorphic target. Shapes: { type: 'row', rowId: '<cuid>' } { type: 'cell', rowId: '<cuid>', columnKey: '<key>' } { type: 'doc_range', surfaceSlug: '<slug>', anchor: { from: <number>, to: <number>, text: '<plain>' } } { type: 'html_element', surfaceSlug: '<slug>', anchor: { selector: '<css>', text?: '<plain>' } } { type: 'surface', surfaceSlug: '<slug>' } { type: 'workspace' }
mentionsNoOptional `[{ kind, id, label }]` mentions. Each mention's principal must have workspace access. Fires inbox + email + webhook fan-out for newly-mentioned recipients only.
parentIdNoOptional parent comment id. When passed, this comment becomes a reply in the thread. Nested replies flatten to single-depth (reply-to-reply re-points at the root). Re-opens a resolved parent.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals nested reply flattening, auto-unresolving of resolved parents, mention access validation, fired events (comment.added, comment.unresolved), and the required role—all critical side effects beyond a simple 'post' action.

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 sentences, each dense with value: purpose, target scope, threading rules, mentions, events, alternative guidance, and role requirement. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's high complexity (polymorphic targets, threading, mentions, events) and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to use it, behavioral consequences, prerequisites, and sibling alternatives. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the polymorphic target shapes mirror the REST endpoint, detailing mention triples and their validation, and clarifying parentId's threading behavior—context beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 opens with 'Post a new comment on any target in a workspace' and enumerates specific target types (row, cell, doc range, html element, surface, workspace). This specific verb+resource+scope clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like reply_to_comment.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to prefer a sibling tool: 'For replies to existing comments where you don't want to reconstruct the target, prefer reply_to_comment.' It also provides usage context with role requirements and threading behavior via parentId, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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

All Dock toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that prevent confusion. The main ambiguity arises from send_message vs. the referenced but missing message_teammate tool, and add_column vs. update_surface for schema changes, but these are mostly clarified by the descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun with underscores (e.g., create_workspace, list_rows, update_doc). Exceptions like 'search' and 'address_book' (no noun) and the two-word 'react_to_comment' are minor deviations in an otherwise consistent pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 68 tools, the surface is far too large for an MCP server, exceeding the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. This volume creates excessive selection overhead for agents and suggests the tool set could be consolidated or split into focused servers.

Completeness3/5

The server covers broad functionality across workspaces, docs, tables, HTML, comments, files, webhooks, and billing. However, notable gaps exist: the explicitly referenced message_teammate tool is missing (preventing agent-to-agent waking), and there is no create/upload file tool or create API key tool, which creates dead ends in workflows.

Resources