ODocs.co

Create Comment

create-comment

Opens a new comment thread on specific text in an ODocs.co document, without changing the document text. Suited to review: flagging a problem, asking a question, or suggesting a change for a person to decide on. The comment is anchored to quote (exact text from the document, matched like replace-text; occurrence selects one match when the quote appears more than once) and is shown highlighted in the editor. Returns the new thread, including its id, as JSON, with a note (that comments are written by anyone with the link) as a second text item.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "quote": "<quote>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "create-comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Document ID
`body`	Yes	Comment text
`quote`	Yes	Exact text in the document to comment on, matched exactly against the current text, like replace-text.
`author`	No	Name shown on your edits and comments (e.g. "Claude via Greg"), with a robot mark as an agent. Invisible and text-direction characters are removed, line breaks and control characters become spaces, and it is cut to 256 characters. A name that resembles ODocs.co or Octaria (including look-alike spellings) is shown as "Agent (Anonymous)". When any of that happens the result has a `warning` field saying what changed.
`occurrence`	No	0-based index of the match (the earliest match is 0); required when the quote appears more than once. It counts every match in the whole doc text, including the phrase inside longer lines; approximateLineNumber and the context in the result show which match was used.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description still adds useful behavior: anchoring via exact-match quoting, highlighting in the editor, the returned thread id, and a visibility note that comments are written by anyone with the link. It stops short of discussing failure modes when the quote is not found or permissions/rate limits, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and non-destructiveness, then usage framing, then anchoring mechanics. The third sentence is long and parenthetical-heavy (anchoring, occurrence, return payload, link-visibility note all in one), which slightly hurts scannability but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to describe the return value (new thread with id as JSON, plus a second text item noting link-based commenting). All five parameters are covered by schema descriptions, and the custom matching semantics of `quote`/`occurrence` are explained, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning about `quote` (exact text, matched like replace-text) and `occurrence` (selects one match when the quote repeats). It also confirms the id/body purpose indirectly via the returned thread, adding value beyond raw schema text.

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 and resource ('Opens a new comment thread on specific text in an ODocs.co document') plus a key scope boundary ('without changing the document text'). This clearly separates it from reply-to-comment and resolve-comment, which act on existing threads.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete when-to-use framing: 'Suited to review: flagging a problem, asking a question, or suggesting a change for a person to decide on.' The phrase 'new comment thread' implicitly excludes replying to an existing thread, but no sibling is named and no explicit exclusion is stated, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All ODocs.co tools Inspect

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

Need Help?