Lightbringer

Add review discussion comment in Lightbringer

add_discussion_comment

Destructive

Posts a standalone comment to the review's discussion feed, visible to the review creator and all participants, and returns the updated discussion. Unlike add_comment, it is not anchored to a passage of the document — it suits general remarks, questions, or status updates about the review as a whole. Eligible review participants receive in-app and email notifications.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`comment`	Yes	The comment text
`review_id`	Yes	The review identifier

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`discussion`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 28, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / discussion / items / properties / author / properties / id / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / discussion / items / properties / author / properties / id / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / discussion / items / properties / author / properties / name / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / discussion / items / properties / author / properties / name / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
AddedSep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds real behavioral context: the comment is visible to the review creator and all participants, eligible participants get in-app and email notifications, and the call returns the updated discussion. It does not address reversibility or why destructiveHint is true for what is essentially an additive post, which is the one remaining gap given annotations already flag the mutation profile.

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 carrying distinct information: what it does, how it differs from the sibling, and its side effects. The scope statement and the sibling contrast are front-loaded with no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, this covers purpose, differentiation, and notification side effects well. Only the destructive-flag semantics and any permission requirements (who counts as an eligible participant who may post) are left implicit.

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%, so both parameters (comment, review_id) are already documented with types and constraints. The description adds only mild framing — that the comment lands in the review's discussion feed — without clarifying identifier format or length expectations beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 target ("Posts a standalone comment to the review's discussion feed") and explicitly contrasts the scope with the sibling add_comment (not anchored to a passage). An agent can distinguish it from add_comment and reply_to_comment without consulting either schema.

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 states the alternative explicitly (add_comment, which is passage-anchored) and names the situations this tool is for: general remarks, questions, or status updates about the review as a whole. The routing decision is fully determined by the text.

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.