create_taskcommentsAdd a comment to a task (e.g. a stakeholder update). The author is the authenticated user. Pass comment_id to reply to an existing comment. Each comment carries app_url, a deep link to the drawer of the task it belongs to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: it discloses that the author is the authenticated user and that each comment has an app_url deep link. These are not present in the annotations or schema, and they do not contradict the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false). It does not cover all possible side effects, but provides meaningful context.
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 three sentences, each adding distinct information: purpose, author context, reply behavior, and app_url. It is well-structured and not verbose, though slightly dense. It earns a 4 for being concise without sacrificing key details.
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 no output schema, the description partially handles the response by mentioning app_url, but it does not describe the full return value, error cases, or prerequisites (e.g., task must exist). It provides enough for basic usage but lacks completeness for a simple create tool with a nested request body.
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?
The description mentions only comment_id and its purpose, but the schema already describes it as 'Optional parent comment id (reply/threading)'. The description does not explain the body structure (text, task_id) or add semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the gap.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a comment to a task'. It also provides a concrete use case ('e.g. a stakeholder update') and distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_ticketcomments by explicitly targeting task comments.
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?
The description gives clear usage context, including that the author is the authenticated user and how to reply to existing comments via comment_id. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools like list_taskcomments for reading comments, so it stops short of a full 5.
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.
Most tools are clearly scoped to a specific resource and action, but a few near-overlapping pairs (e.g., list_attachments vs list_taskattachments, create_tasktags vs add_tag_tasks) could cause misselection without close reading. Descriptions are detailed enough to resolve most ambiguity.
The dominant verb_noun CRUD pattern (create_, list_, retrieve_, update_, partial_update_, destroy_) is consistent and predictable. However, non-standard pluralizations (companys, resumeentrys, taskdependencys) and a handful of irregular names (task_assign_user, move_relate_to_tasks) introduce minor inconsistencies.
With 83 tools, this server is far beyond a well-scoped MCP surface, even for a feature-complete project management suite. The sheer volume will overwhelm agents and make selection inefficient, clearly falling into the extreme-mismatch range.
The toolset provides thorough lifecycle coverage across companies, projects, tasks, sprints, attachments, comments, dependencies, tags, reminders, resume entries, tickets, and users. Missing operations like company deletion or task-attachment creation appear intentional and are worked around via existing tools.