Done Bear MCP

Manage Task Comment

comment

Destructive

Write on a task's comment thread. action: "add" posts a comment, attributed to the connected user and visible to everyone in the workspace, so write it as a message to the user's teammates rather than a note to the user; nobody is notified. action: "edit" rewrites one of your own (only its author may, and it is then marked edited). action: "remove" deletes one permanently — comments have no Trash — so confirm with the user first. Read the thread with task_show and include: ["comments"].

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	Comment text. Required to add or edit
`task`	Yes	Workspace-scoped task number, encoded as a string
`action`	Yes	What to do on the thread
`comment`	No	Comment UUID or prefix (>= 4 chars). Required to edit or remove
`context`	Yes	Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."
`workspace`	No	Workspace id, slug, or name
`idempotency_key`	No	Stable key that makes retries safe: repeated calls with the same key create only one record and return the same id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`ok`	Yes
`action`	Yes
`taskId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

AddedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses attribution to the connected user, workspace-wide visibility, lack of notifications, author-only editing with an edited marker, and no-Trash permanent deletion. These are non-obvious behavioral consequences an agent must know before acting. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description front-loads the core purpose and then allocates one dense, informative sentence per action. Every sentence carries a critical warning or constraint; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Covers all three action modes, permission constraints, permanence, notification behavior, and the read alternative. With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, nothing essential for correct selection or invocation is 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. The description adds meaning by explaining the effect and constraints of each action, such as edit requiring an owned comment and remove being irreversible. It leaves idempotency_key and comment-prefix details to the schema, which already documents them.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Write on a task's comment thread') and then enumerates three concrete actions, each with distinct behavior. This clearly separates it from siblings like task_edit (which edits task fields) and task_show (which reads the thread).

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?

It explicitly states when to use each action: add for posting visible comments, edit for one's own comments, remove for permanent deletion requiring user confirmation. It also directs the agent to the alternative read tool, task_show with include: ['comments'], leaving no ambiguity.

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

All Done Bear MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Task operations are clearly separated into distinct actions, and the resource tools (attachment, checklist, comment, project) are each tied to a specific object. The main ambiguity is between search and task_list, since task_list accepts a search parameter; descriptions help, but an agent could still misselect.

Naming Consistency3/5

Task tools follow a consistent task_verb pattern, but other tools mix bare nouns with an action parameter (attachment, checklist, comment, project), use reversed noun_verb (label_create), or are bare verbs/nouns (search, guide). The set is readable but not uniformly patterned.

Tool Count5/5

15 tools is within the well-scoped range for a task-management server, and each tool covers a distinct area: task lifecycle, search, context, projects, labels, attachments, checklists, comments, and guidance. No tool feels redundant or gratuitous.

Completeness4/5

The task lifecycle is well covered: create, show, list, edit, complete, reopen, and archive. Minor gaps include no permanent task deletion, no label update/delete tool, and no project removal, but these are workable and do not block core workflows.

Resources

Need Help?