mcp-server

add_comment

Leave a comment on a task in the connected LoopGantt ACCOUNT (requires a LoopGantt API key) — notes, handoffs between agents, questions for a person. It shows in the task timeline, notifies the task watchers and @-mentioned people, and fires the comment.posted webhook.

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": {
      "taskId": "<taskId>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "add_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`taskId`	Yes	Task id from list_tasks
`content`	Yes	The comment text (up to 10 000 characters)
`parentId`	No	Reply to this top-level comment id (from list_comments)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does much of it: it declares the auth prerequisite (LoopGantt API key), the visibility surface (task timeline), the notification fan-out (task watchers and @-mentioned people), and the side effect (comment.posted webhook). It stops short of failure modes, rate limits, or whether duplicate submissions are deduplicated.

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?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and every clause carrying information: auth requirement, use cases, visibility, notifications, webhook. The parenthetical API-key note slightly interrupts the flow, but nothing is redundant.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers auth, side effects, and audience well. The main residual gap is return value: it never says a comment object or id comes back, which matters because that id feeds parentId for replies.

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%, so all three parameters including taskId, content, and parentId are already documented in the schema. The description adds only indirect meaning via the @-mention behavior, which hints that mentions inside content have effects, but it does not explain the reply-vs-top-level distinction that parentId controls.

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 ('Leave a comment on a task') and scopes it to the connected LoopGantt account, which separates it cleanly from the read-side sibling list_comments. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

The description supplies use cases ('notes, handoffs between agents, questions for a person'), which implies when to reach for it, but gives no explicit routing against alternatives such as list_comments or a task update. There is no when-not guidance and no mention that replies should use parentId rather than a new top-level comment.

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

All mcp-server 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.

Resources

Need Help?