Lightbringer

Add review comment

add_comment

Destructive

Adds a comment to the document under review, anchored to a quoted passage of the review markdown, and returns the created comment. If the quoted passage is ambiguous or cannot be located, the response indicates this along with candidate passages. A comment anchored within an existing thread is added as a reply. Targeted users with document access receive email and in-app mention notifications.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`comment`	Yes	The comment text
`review_id`	Yes	The review identifier
`quoted_text`	Yes	Quoted passage from the review markdown to anchor on
`target_user_ids`	No	User identifiers to notify. Identifiers without document access are ignored.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hint`	No
`hints`	No
`anchor`	No
`status`	Yes
`replyTo`	No
`commentId`	No
`candidates`	No
`instructions`	No
`mentionedUserIds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 28, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / anchor / oneOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": false,
-    "properties": {
-      "block": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "kind": {
-        "const": "inline",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "quotedText": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "section": {
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "kind",
-      "section",
-      "block",
-      "quotedText"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": false,
-    "properties": {
-      "kind": {
-        "const": "section",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "section": {
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "kind",
-      "section"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": false,
-    "properties": {
-      "kind": {
-        "const": "detached",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "path": {
-        "anyOf": [
-          {
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          {
-            "type": "null"
-          }
-        ]
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "kind"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "block": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "kind": {
+        "const": "inline",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "quotedText": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "section": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "kind",
+      "section",
+      "block",
+      "quotedText"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "kind": {
+        "const": "section",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "section": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "kind",
+      "section"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "kind": {
+        "const": "detached",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "path": {
+        "type": [
+          "string",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "kind"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 8, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / review_id / maxLength
```
Added value: +64
```
- addedInput schema / properties / review_id / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```
- addedInput schema / properties / review_id / pattern
```
Added value: +"^[A-Za-z0-9_-]+$"
```
First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it discloses the ambiguity fallback with candidate passages, the thread-reply redirect, and email/in-app mention notifications to targeted users. It does not explain why destructiveHint=true applies to what sounds like an additive comment, which is the one behavioral question left open.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before edge cases (ambiguity, threads, notifications). No filler, though the notification sentence could be trimmed slightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are rightly omitted; instead the description covers the non-obvious edge cases an agent must anticipate (unresolvable anchors, threaded replies, notification side effects). Complete enough to call correctly.

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, but the description goes further by explaining what quoted_text actually does (anchors the comment) and clarifying that target_user_ids drive email and in-app mention notifications. It adds meaning rather than repeating the 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 ('Adds a comment to the document under review') and pins down the anchoring mechanism (quoted passage of the review markdown). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the very similar sibling add_discussion_comment, leaving sibling differentiation to inference.

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?

Implies when the tool applies by describing the threaded-reply behavior and the ambiguity response, but never states when to use this instead of add_discussion_comment, reply_to_comment, or respond_to_review. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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

All Lightbringer tools Inspect

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.