Skip to main content
Glama

Edit a comment

edit_comment

Changes the text of one of your own comments.

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": {
      "commentId": "<commentId>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "edit_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesPlain text. Mention teammates as <@userId>, with user IDs from list_team; they're notified.
commentIdYesThe comment's ID, from get_application's timeline.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and the description's 'changes the text' is consistent with that. The description adds the useful authorization constraint (own comments only), but says nothing about side effects such as re-notifying mentioned teammates, which the schema mentions for body but the description does not.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, front-loaded on the verb and resource. It is arguably too terse given the available room, but every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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 annotation coverage, the description covers the core action and ownership scope. It leaves gaps on error behavior (editing a foreign or deleted comment) and on what the call returns, though the absence of an output schema makes the latter less critical.

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 the body parameter description already covers mention syntax, notification behavior and text format. The description adds only the ownership constraint on commentId, so it is at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Changes the text of ... comments') plus an ownership scope ('one of your own comments'), which separates it from add_comment and delete_comment. It stops short of naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the routing.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'one of your own comments' implies a precondition (you can only edit comments you authored), which is useful usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-delete/add, nor any stated behavior for attempting to edit someone else's comment.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources