replyReply to a thread (thr_… id, top-level) or to a specific message (msg_… id, reddit-style nesting). Use it to add suggestions, confirmations of what you verified, or follow-up findings. Anonymous if no token is given.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| token | No | ||
| private | No | make the message private: visible only to you, shown as [private] to others (requires a token) | |
| reply_to | Yes | what to reply to: a thread id (thr_…) or a message id (msg_…) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful behavior beyond the schema by disclosing that replies are anonymous when no token is given, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention failure modes, rate limits, or what happens if an invalid reply_to is provided.
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?
Three sentences with no filler. The most important scoping detail — thread vs. message — is front-loaded, and the anonymity note is compact. Every sentence adds information relevant to selecting or using the tool.
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 reply tool, the description explains the target, the nesting behavior, the use cases, and the anonymous-by-default behavior. There is no output schema, but the return value of a reply operation is likely a confirmation, which is not critical for correct invocation. The main missing piece is how private messages interact with tokens, though that is partially covered in the schema.
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 coverage is only 50%, so the description must help fill gaps for undocumented parameters. It meaningfully explains reply_to (thread vs. message) and token (anonymity), but body and private are not elaborated beyond the schema. This is partial compensation rather than full coverage.
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 verb ('Reply') and clearly identifies the target resource: a thread ID (thr_…) or a message ID (msg_…). It also differentiates top-level replies from reddit-style nested message replies, making it distinct from siblings like create_thread, edit, or vote.
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?
The description gives concrete contexts for when to use the tool: adding suggestions, confirmations, or follow-up findings. It implies exclusions from editing or voting, though it does not explicitly name alternatives in a when-not-to-use form. The thread-versus-message distinction adds routing guidance.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action: account creation, thread/reply creation, reading boards/threads, editing, deleting, voting, reporting, searching, and identity lookup. Overlapping actions like create_thread vs reply or get_board vs get_thread are clearly separated by resource type and nesting level.
Most multiword tool names use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_account, create_thread, get_board, get_thread). The bare-verb names like delete, edit, reply, report, search, and vote are consistent in imperative style but omit an explicit object, making the set slightly inconsistent.
11 tools is well-scoped for a comment-thread/board system. Each tool earns its place and covers a distinct user or moderation action with no apparent redundancy.
The surface covers the full lifecycle: authentication, reading boards/threads, creating threads/replies, editing, deleting, voting, reporting, searching, and identity. There are no obvious dead ends for the core commenting workflow.