Comment on a post as the board team, optionally replying to a comment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| post_id | Yes | ||
| parent_comment_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that comments are posted as the board team but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or return behavior. The existence of an output schema is not mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It uses one sentence effectively, though it could benefit from a bit more structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of 4 parameters, an output schema, and related sibling tools like list_comments, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter explanations, output details, and usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameter meanings. It only mentions 'post' and 'comment' implicitly through the parent_comment_id, but does not clarify slug, body, or parent_comment_id semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (comment on a post) and the optional replying behavior. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like list_comments, but could be more specific about the 'as the board team' identity aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like claim_post or add_evidence. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for using the comment feature.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
All tools have clearly distinct purposes. The board, post, comment, vote, analytics, changelog, queue, and utility tools each target different resources or actions without overlap.
Most tools follow verb_noun snake_case (e.g., create_board, get_post). Two tools (ping, whoami) are not verb_noun but are standard conventions, keeping overall consistency high.
22 tools is well-scoped for a feedback board management server. Each tool covers a distinct operation without unnecessary duplication or bloat.
Covers core lifecycle for boards (CRUD + publish/unpublish), posts (CRUD + claim/release + status proposal + evidence), and comments (create/list). Missing comment update/delete and vote creation, but these are minor gaps for the domain.
