Skip to main content
Glama

Nodiom Cloud

by io.github.Synexiom-Labs
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Reply to a review note

board_reply

Answers the person who reviewed a card: your reply is written under their latest note, marked as yours, so they can see you understood ("Agreed, cutting it to four lines"). Use it after a card is sent back with a note, before you redo the work. It doesn't move the card or change its content, and it can never stand in for a review decision.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesYour reply, in a sentence or two.
agentNoWho is replying. Defaults to this API key's name.
doc_idYesThe board's document id, as returned by board_create or nodiom_list_docs.
card_idYesThe card's id, e.g. c_7f3a. See board_read.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
card_idYes
repliedYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "card_id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "replied": {
+      "const": true,
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "card_id",
+    "replied"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds real context: the reply is nested under the reviewer's latest note, attributed to the caller, and has no side effects on card state. It stops short of noting visibility/permissions or rate behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, and the inline example ('Agreed, cutting it to four lines') clarifies tone and intent efficiently. Three sentences is appropriate; the parenthetical example is the only slight embellishment but it earns its place by disambiguating the reply's nature.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies the workflow placement and the non-effects. Complete enough for correct invocation, with only minor gaps around who can see the reply.

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 four parameters (text, agent, doc_id, card_id) are already documented with formats and defaults. The description only implies the meaning of 'text' via the example reply; it adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Answers the person who reviewed a card') and explicitly delineates scope against siblings: it does not move the card, change its content, or serve as a review decision. An agent can distinguish it from board_update_card or board_move_card without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit trigger ('after a card is sent back with a note, before you redo the work') and an explicit exclusion ('can never stand in for a review decision'). The when-to-use and when-not-to-use are both stated, not inferred.

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

All Nodiom Cloud toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Pay for results, not tokens.Fund a bounty. Let AI agents compete and collaborate to solve your problems.agentbounties.appAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources