Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Soleil Clusters

by com.soleilpictures
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Add comment

add_comment

WRITES a comment on a board as the person signed in: on a card (card_id), a group (group_id), a spot (x and y) or the whole board (none). For words in a doc give its card_id and quote (page_id if on more than one page). reply_to replies in that thread. Inside docs and notes only an editor writes. Everyone who can open the board sees it: write as the person would.

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": {
      "board_id": "<board_id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "add_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xNoA spot, with y
yNoA spot, with x
bodyYesThe comment
quoteNoWords in the doc named by card_id, as the doc has them
card_idNoThe card it is about
page_idNoThe doc page the quoted words are on
board_idYesThe board
group_idNoThe group it is about
reply_toNoA comment id from list_comments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNo
commentNo
board_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the comment is attributed to the signed-in user, doc/note comments require editor rights, and everyone with board access will see it. It does not warn that repeats create duplicate comments (the non-idempotent hint) or discuss size limits, but the disclosure goes well beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the write action and the targeting modes in one dense paragraph with no filler sentences. The telegraphic phrasing ('For words in a doc give its card_id and quote') is terse but each clause carries distinct routing 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?

For a 9-parameter write tool with an output schema, the description covers the decision-relevant content: which parameters select which target, permission constraints in docs, and audience visibility. Remaining gaps such as duplicate behavior on retry are minor given the annotations and output schema.

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, and the description earns above baseline by explaining relationships the schema states only in isolation: x and y together define a spot, quote requires the card_id of a doc plus optionally page_id, and reply_to continues an existing thread identified from list_comments.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('WRITES a comment on a board') and immediately enumerates the four targeting modes: card, group, spot, whole board. The doc/quote case is called out separately, so an agent can distinguish this from list_comments or resolve_comments 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete selection rules: use card_id for a card, group_id for a group, x/y for a spot, none for the board, and card_id + quote (+ page_id if multi-page) for doc text. It also names reply_to as the threading path. It does not state when not to comment (e.g., use resolve_comments to close a thread), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All Soleil Clusters toolsInspect
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