comment_on_issuePost a comment on a website issue — use it to record analysis, a proposed fix, or what you changed, so the team sees it in the dashboard issue thread. Markdown is supported.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Comment body (markdown supported). | |
| website_id | Yes | Website id the issue belongs to. | |
| issue_number | Yes | Issue number from list_issues. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by mentioning that comments support Markdown and appear in the dashboard issue thread. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent. No contradictions.
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 two sentences long, front-loads the main purpose, and avoids any wasted words. The Markdown hint is appended efficiently.
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?
For a simple comment-posting tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, usage context, and a key feature (Markdown). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning by stating that the body supports Markdown and that the comment is posted to a thread visible to the team. This aids understanding beyond the schema descriptions.
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 verb 'Post' and the resource 'comment on a website issue'. It further specifies the purpose: to record analysis, proposed fix, or changes, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_website or list_issues by focusing on comment threads.
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 explicitly says when to use the tool (to record analysis, fix, or changes) and provides context ('so the team sees it in the dashboard issue thread'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling tools list provides implicit differentiation.
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.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource-action pair: websites, audits, issues, rules, credits, notifications, and account info are cleanly separated. Even the close pairs (delete_website vs delete_websites, get_rule vs list_rules) are clear singular/bulk or fetch-all vs fetch-one distinctions.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: add_, delete_, get_, list_, run_, comment_, send_, create_. The only outlier, whoami, is a conventional standalone command and does not break the overall predictability.
At 20 tools, the surface is slightly heavy, but the count is justified by the wide domain coverage: audit lifecycle, issue tracking, rule catalog, billing/credits, notifications, and account management. Each tool appears to earn its place, and none feel redundant.
The core workflow is well covered: run an audit, poll it, fetch a report, compare audits, list and comment on issues, browse rules, and manage websites. Minor gaps exist—no cancel-audit tool, no update_website, and issues cannot be status-changed—but agents can work around these using the existing tools.