leave_comment
Attach a short comment (≤280 chars) to a piece kapoost has published. Truncated silently past the limit.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | No | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| text | Yes |
humanMCP — kapoost
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a key behavioral trait: silent truncation past 280 characters. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it omits details like authentication requirements, error handling, or comment visibility, making this only partial transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and a concise behavioral note. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a mutating operation with no annotations and no output schema. The description gives the core purpose and limit behavior, but is incomplete regarding parameter semantics (especially 'from'), potential side effects, and failure modes. It does not provide enough context for an agent to confidently use the tool without further inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, leaving all three parameters undocumented. The description hints at 'text' being the comment and 'slug' identifying the piece, but 'from' remains ambiguous. The description does not adequately compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's verb ('attach') and resource ('a piece kapoost has published'), and adds a constraint (short comment ≤280 chars). It distinguishes from sibling 'leave_message' by focusing on comment vs message, though not explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: attach a comment to a published piece. However, it gives no explicit 'when to use' context or alternatives, and does not address exclusions or prerequisites beyond the character limit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but a few boundaries are fuzzy: leave_message vs ask_human vs leave_comment, and list_content vs list_collection could confuse an agent at first glance. Overall, the descriptions are thorough enough to disambiguate.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming convention is predominantly snake_case with verb_noun structure (list_content, read_blob, upsert_skill). Minor deviations exist such as the mysloodsiewnia_* prefix and British spelling in synthesise_persona_patterns, but the pattern is highly recognizable and readable.
Tool Count2/5
At 41 tools, the surface area is very large for a single MCP server and exceeds the 'heavy' threshold. While each tool serves a distinct purpose, the sheer number makes the server feel bloated and harder to navigate; many tools could be grouped or pruned without losing core functionality.
Completeness4/5
The server covers a broad domain: content read/list, personas, skills management, vault CRUD (except update/delete intentionally), provenance, licensing, memory, and async question/narada workflows. Minor gaps exist like no tool to cancel a narada job or update a memory, but these are workable and the core workflows are well supported.