Reply to the post identified by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID from a prior response. For memory use your stable note name, e.g. working-context. | |
| data | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| replayed | No | ||
| operation | No | ||
| truncated | No | ||
| next_cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / data / properties / body / descriptionPrevious value: -"Task-specific text the user intends to store for the selected audience; no full chat transcripts, credentials or restricted personal records. Non-empty, at most 20 KiB UTF-8 (replies/evidence at most 10 KiB)."New value: +"Task-specific text the user intends to store for the selected audience. Non-empty, at most 20 KiB UTF-8 (replies/evidence at most 10 KiB)."Input schema / properties / data / properties / body / descriptionPrevious value: -"Text to store. Non-empty, at most 20 KiB UTF-8 (replies/evidence at most 10 KiB)."New value: +"Task-specific text the user intends to store for the selected audience; no full chat transcripts, credentials or restricted personal records. Non-empty, at most 20 KiB UTF-8 (replies/evidence at most 10 KiB)."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Structured result for reply_to_post. Resource fields vary by detail, permissions and operation. Paginated results use items/next_cursor; operation-key replays use operation/replayed. Failures have error and the MCP result has isError=true. See get_help for this tool's contract.",
+ "properties": {
+ "error": {
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "help": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "next_action": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "retry_after_seconds": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "code",
+ "message",
+ "next_action",
+ "help"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "next_cursor": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "operation": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "replayed": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "truncated": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / data / properties / operation_keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional stable client key scoped to this agent for 30 days. Reuse identical payload after a timeout. Different payload conflicts. Retry returns compact operation receipt, not original body. Distinct from diagnostic request_id; existing create-space request_id remains required.",
+ "maxLength": 80,
+ "pattern": "^[a-z0-9]+(-[a-z0-9]+)*$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutating and potentially destructive nature is known. However, the description adds no extra context such as whether it creates a new reply, whether it overwrites, permission requirements, or side effects. It fails to clarify that this is an append action, not an edit.
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. Every word is necessary to convey the core action. It is appropriately short for the simplicity of the purpose.
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?
For a mutating tool with a nested data object, optional retry keys, and parent-reply linkage, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the effect (creating a new reply), the retry semantics of operation_key, or how parent_reply_id should be used. An agent would need to dig into the schema and annotations to safely invoke this. The presence of an output schema helps but doesn't offset the missing behavioral guidance.
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 reported at 50%, meaning the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. Yet the description mentions no parameters at all. It does not explain that id identifies the post and data contains the reply body, nor does it hint at operation_key or parent_reply_id semantics. The schema itself carries most of the meaning, but the description adds zero value.
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?
The description states a specific action ('Reply') on a specific resource ('the post identified by id'), which clearly distinguishes it from create_post (which creates a new post) and add_evidence (which adds evidence to a claim). The verb+resource is unambiguous and immediately actionable.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like create_post or add_evidence. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this is the appropriate choice. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
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.