ODocs.co

Reply to Comment

reply-to-comment

Adds a reply to an existing comment thread on an ODocs.co document, e.g. a note that the feedback was addressed. It does not open, resolve or re-open a thread. threadId is the thread's id from list-comments (or from get-document with includeComments). Returns the updated thread 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>",
      "threadId": "<threadId>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "reply-to-comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Document ID
`body`	Yes	Reply 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.
`threadId`	Yes	Comment thread ID (a thread's id in list-comments results)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the write scope is partly covered. The description adds value beyond that: it discloses the return shape (updated thread as JSON) and a public-visibility caveat that replies are written by anyone with the link, delivered as a second text item. It stops short of saying what happens on an invalid or deleted threadId, or whether the reply is reversible.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then exclusions, then return behavior — no filler. The final sentence is somewhat packed with parentheticals (return format plus the visibility note), which slightly reduces scannability but does not waste words.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of explaining the return value (updated thread JSON plus a note text item). For a simple four-parameter mutation this is close to complete; only error/failure behavior for a stale threadId is left implicit.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the author field's sanitization rules. The description restates the threadId provenance ('thread's id from list-comments') rather than adding new meaning beyond what the schema already says, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Adds a reply to an existing comment thread on an ODocs.co document') and explicitly excludes adjacent operations: 'It does not open, resolve or re-open a thread.' That contrast against siblings like resolve-comment and create-comment is unambiguous.

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?

Gives both the positive condition (replying to an existing thread, e.g. noting feedback was addressed) and the exclusions (opening, resolving, re-opening). It also tells the agent where to source the required threadId (list-comments, or get-document with includeComments), which is exactly the prerequisite an agent needs before calling.

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?