Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Conecto

by chat.conecto
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Comment on a task

tasks_comment

Add a comment (Markdown) to a task's thread. Costs $0.01 per call; nothing if it fails.

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": {
      "task": "<task>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "tasks_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
taskYesA task like "WEB-12", or its task_id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely useful trait beyond structured data: a $0.01 per-call cost that is waived on failure. It does not say who the comment is attributed to or whether editing/removal is possible later.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded before the billing note.

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?

For a simple two-parameter write tool with no output schema, purpose, format, and cost are all covered. A note on whether the new comment (or its id) is returned, or on threading behavior, would round it out.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%: 'task' is documented in the schema but 'body' has no description there. The description compensates by declaring the body is Markdown, but omits the enforced 10,000-character limit and doesn't clarify acceptable task identifier forms beyond what the schema already says.

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 (Add) and resource (a comment to a task's thread) plus the content format (Markdown). An agent can immediately tell this apart from tasks_update or tasks_get without inspecting schemas.

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?

The intent is implied clearly by the name and sentence, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus tasks_update for changing task fields, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

All Conecto toolsInspect
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