Skip to main content
Glama

Markdown by mdedit.ai

by io.github.mangoappstudio
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Add a review comment

add_comment
Idempotent

Add an anchored review comment without directly changing document prose. Accepts natural workspace names and document titles; internal routing identifiers are optional. Returns threadId and targetId for reply_to_thread and resolve_thread.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
anchorYes
targetIdNo
articleIdNoInternal document identifier when already available. Omit it when the user referred to the document by title.
commandIdYesGlobally unique UUID for this logical review mutation. Generate it once and reuse the exact value if the tool call is retried.
workspaceIdNoInternal workspace identifier when already available. Omit it when the user referred to a workspace by name or has only one workspace.
articleTitleNoHuman-visible document title. Prefer this over asking the user for an internal document identifier.
workspaceNameNoHuman-visible workspace name. Prefer this over asking the user for an internal workspace identifier.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventsYes
appliedYes
targetIdYesReview target containing the new thread. Pass this exact value with threadId to resolve_thread or reply_to_thread.
threadIdYesStable review thread identifier. Pass this exact value with targetId to resolve_thread or reply_to_thread; do not use commandId.
articleIdYes
commandIdYes
workspaceIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / commandId / description
      Added value: +"Globally unique UUID for this logical review mutation. Generate it once and reuse the exact value if the tool call is retried."
    • addedInput schema / properties / commandId / format
      Added value: +"uuid"
    • removedInput schema / properties / commandId / minLength
      Removed value: -1
    • addedInput schema / properties / commandId / pattern
      Added value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "anchor",
-  "body"
-]New value: +[
+  "anchor",
+  "body",
+  "commandId"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read/write, idempotency, and non-destructiveness; the description adds non-obvious behavior: comments do not directly change document prose, natural names are accepted, and threadId/targetId are returned for downstream calls. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then add scoping and return-value context. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 an 8-param tool with 63% schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the core workflow and identifier flexibility well. It is slightly incomplete about the optional targetId input, but the anchor structure is clear from the schema and the output schema covers return details.

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 63%, and the description adds meaningful guidance: prefer human-readable titles and workspace names over internal identifiers, internal routing IDs are optional, and the returned IDs are meant for reply/resolve. It does not fully elaborate anchor or body semantics, preventing a 5.

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 ('Add an anchored review comment'), conveys non-destructive scope, and distinguishes from document-editing tools. The mention of return IDs for reply_to_thread and resolve_thread also separates it from thread-operation siblings.

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?

Implies use when the user wants an anchored review comment rather than a prose edit, but never explicitly names alternatives such as add_suggestion or says when not to use it. The downstream mention of reply_to_thread and resolve_thread is workflow context, not a when-to-use guide.

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

All Markdown by mdedit.ai 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