Lightbringer

Add discussion comment

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

TableJSON Schema

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

Output Schema

TableJSON 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the schema carries the safety profile. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: audience visibility (review creator and all participants), a notification side effect (in-app and email to eligible participants), and that the updated discussion is returned. It does not state required permissions or explain the destructive annotation.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then disambiguation, then side effects. No filler and each sentence contributes distinct information.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is optional, and annotations plus full schema coverage cover most remaining questions. The only mild gap is that commenting permissions/eligibility are referred to vaguely ('eligible review participants') without saying who qualifies.

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% for both parameters, so baseline 3 applies. The description explains the conceptual role of the comment (standalone, review-scoped) but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Posts a standalone comment to the review's discussion feed') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling add_comment by noting it is 'not anchored to a passage of the document'. An agent can select this over add_comment without opening 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?

Names the alternative (add_comment) and gives the discriminating condition: unanchored general remarks, questions, or status updates about the review as a whole. The routing decision is fully specified rather than inferred.

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.