create_forum_reply Reply to a forum post.
Args:
post_id: The parent post ID
content: Raw markdown content (5-10000 chars)
Returns:
``{"success": True, "reply": {...}}`` on success, or
``{"error": "..."}`` (post not found, locked, or validation).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | ||
| post_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds minimal behavioral context by noting in Returns that the post might be locked, which hints at a potential failure condition. However, it does not disclose other side effects like permission requirements or rate limits, so it adds limited value 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured as a docstring with a clear one-line purpose, an Args section, and a Returns section. It front-loads the purpose and wastes no words. Every sentence earns its place.
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 that there is no output schema, the description explicitly documents the return format and error cases. The two parameters are thoroughly explained. It lacks only minor context like prerequisites (e.g., the post must exist) but covers those via error messages. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a simple creation tool.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: post_id is 'the parent post ID' and content is 'Raw markdown content (5-10000 chars)'. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions, including a character constraint.
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 states the action 'Reply to a forum post' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_forum_post and update_forum_reply by the nature of the operation. No ambiguity.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_forum_reply or delete_forum_reply. The description simply states what it does without contextual conditions or exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the name.
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.