Done Bear MCP

Add Comment

comment_add

Post a comment on a task. It is attributed to the connected user and is visible to everyone in the workspace, so write it as a message to the user's teammates rather than as a note to the user. Nobody is notified: a comment is read when someone opens the task.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	Comment text
`task`	Yes	Workspace-scoped task number, encoded as a string
`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
`taskId`	Yes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds valuable behavioral detail: the comment is attributed to the user, visible to everyone in the workspace, and triggers no notifications. This goes beyond what the annotations or schema alone convey.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the attribution/visibility caveat, and the notification behavior. Information is front-loaded and there is no fluff.

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?

Combined with the fully documented schema and presence of an output schema, the description covers the important behavioral and social context needed to invoke the tool correctly. It does not explicitly discuss optional parameters like workspace or idempotency_key, but the schema already handles those, so nothing critical is missing.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description contributes a bit of body-parameter guidance ('write it as a message to the user's teammates') but does not need to explain parameter mechanics.

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 'Post a comment on a task,' which gives a specific verb, resource, and action. It clearly differentiates this creation tool from sibling comment tools like comment_edit, comment_list, and comment_remove.

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?

The description provides clear context on how the comment should be written: it is attributed to the connected user, visible to the workspace, and notifies nobody. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the public-message framing gives enough practical guidance.

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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are cleanly separated by resource and action, and each family (checklist, comment, label, project, task) follows the same shape. The main blur is between search and task_list's optional search filter, and convenience tools like checklist_done overlap with checklist_edit.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant convention is snake_case noun_verb (task_add, checklist_list, comment_remove), with consistent verb families across resources. A few outliers like get_context, search, and guide break the pattern, but overall the naming is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, this is a heavy surface for a task-management server and exceeds the 25-tool threshold. Several tools are convenience variants (task_done vs task_bulk_done, checklist_done vs checklist_edit) that could be consolidated or represented as parameters.

Completeness4/5

The core task lifecycle is well covered: create, show, edit, complete, reopen, archive, list, assign, and bulk operations, with full checklist and comment CRUD. Notable gaps are label deletion/renaming, project deletion, and search being limited to tasks, but these are minor for the apparent product scope.

Resources

Need Help?