Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Contracko

by com.contracko
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Add contract comment

clm_add_contract_comment
Destructive

Comment as acting member; emails contract followers. Repeats create another comment.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID
contentYesComment

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / content / description
      Previous value: -"Comment body"New value: +"Comment"
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"Existing contract identifier"New value: +"ID"
    • removedInput schema / properties / id / pattern
      Removed value: -"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
-  "additionalProperties": false,
-  "properties": {
-    "comment": {
-      "additionalProperties": false,
-      "description": "Created comment",
-      "properties": {
-        "avatarUrl": {
-          "anyOf": [
-            {
-              "type": "string"
-            },
-            {
-              "type": "null"
-            }
-          ]
-        },
-        "content": {
-          "description": "Comment body",
-          "minLength": 1,
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "createdAt": {
-          "description": "When the comment was created",
-          "format": "date-time",
-          "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z))$",
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "id": {
-          "allOf": [
-            {
-              "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
-              "type": "string"
-            },
-            {
-              "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
-              "type": "string"
-            }
-          ],
-          "description": "Comment identifier",
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "isOwnComment": {
-          "description": "Whether the acting user authored this comment",
-          "type": "boolean"
-        },
-        "updatedAt": {
-          "description": "When the comment was last updated",
-          "format": "date-time",
-          "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z))$",
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "userDisplayName": {
-          "anyOf": [
-            {
-              "type": "string"
-            },
-            {
-              "type": "null"
-            }
-          ]
-        },
-        "userId": {
-          "description": "Author user identifier",
-          "minLength": 1,
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "username": {
-          "anyOf": [
-            {
-              "type": "string"
-            },
-            {
-              "type": "null"
-            }
-          ]
-        }
-      },
-      "required": [
-        "id",
-        "content",
-        "createdAt",
-        "updatedAt",
-        "userId",
-        "userDisplayName",
-        "avatarUrl",
-        "username",
-        "isOwnComment"
-      ],
-      "type": "object"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "comment"
-  ],
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: comments are attributed to the acting member and trigger email notifications to contract followers. The 'repeats create another comment' line usefully explains what non-idempotency means in practice, though it does not explain why the tool is flagged destructive.

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?

Two compact sentences with the primary action leading and the side-effect/idempotency notes following. Phrasing is telegraphic ('Repeats create another comment') but no sentence is wasted.

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 mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, attribution, notification side effect, and duplicate behavior. Only minor gaps remain, such as the authorization implied by 'acting member' and what 'destructive' refers to.

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 100% and both parameters (id, content) are documented, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no meaning about the id format or the content constraints (1–10000 chars) beyond what is already structured.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the action clearly (comment, attributed to the acting member) and the resource is unambiguous via the tool name and the sibling clm_list_contract_comments. It does not explicitly name the sibling tool to distinguish read vs. write, but the verb+resource pairing is specific enough for selection.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus clm_list_contract_comments or the event-creation tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Comment'.

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

All Contracko 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