Markdown by mdedit.ai

Reply to a review thread

reply_to_thread

Idempotent

Reply to an existing review thread.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes
`context`	Yes	Describe the user's underlying goal in one sentence. Do not include private document content, credentials, or personal information.
`targetId`	No
`threadId`	Yes
`articleId`	No	Internal document identifier when already available. Omit it when the user referred to the document by title.
`commandId`	Yes	Globally unique UUID for this logical review mutation. Generate it once and reuse the exact value if the tool call is retried.
`workspaceId`	No	Optional workspace ID to narrow document lookup. Omit when the document title or ID uniquely identifies a document across authorized workspaces.
`articleTitle`	No	Human-visible document title. Prefer this over asking the user for an internal document identifier.
`workspaceName`	No	Optional workspace name to narrow document lookup. A unique document title can be used without a workspace choice.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`events`	Yes
`applied`	Yes
`articleId`	Yes
`commandId`	Yes
`workspaceId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 10, 2026

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

addedInput schema / properties / context

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Describe the user's underlying goal in one sentence. Do not include private document content, credentials, or personal information.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / workspaceId / description

Previous value: -"Internal workspace identifier when already available. Omit it when the user referred to a workspace by name or has only one workspace."New value: +"Optional workspace ID to narrow document lookup. Omit when the document title or ID uniquely identifies a document across authorized workspaces."

changedInput schema / properties / workspaceName / description

Previous value: -"Human-visible workspace name. Prefer this over asking the user for an internal workspace identifier."New value: +"Optional workspace name to narrow document lookup. A unique document title can be used without a workspace choice."

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "threadId",
-  "body",
-  "commandId"
-]New value: +[
+  "threadId",
+  "body",
+  "commandId",
+  "context"
+]

Changed5 schema fields changedSep 15, 2026

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: -[
-  "threadId",
-  "body"
-]New value: +[
+  "threadId",
+  "body",
+  "commandId"
+]

First observedAug 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds nothing on top — no mention of what a reply appends, whether participants are notified, or what the idempotency key protects against — so it contributes no behavioral context beyond structured data. 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, which is good, but for a 9-parameter mutation tool this level of brevity reads as under-specification rather than tight writing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a non-destructive but non-idempotent-looking mutation in a dense sibling set (accept/reject suggestion, add_comment, resolve_thread), the description omits all context an agent needs to select it correctly, leaving a significant gap.

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?

With 9 parameters and only 67% schema description coverage, the description is the natural place to clarify the required threadId and body fields plus the document-lookup fields (articleId, articleTitle, workspaceId, workspaceName). It supplies none of that, leaving the two required params entirely undocumented anywhere.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (reply to a thread), and the word 'existing' implies the thread must already exist. However, it essentially restates the tool name and title with no differentiation from siblings like add_comment or resolve_thread, so an agent gains almost nothing beyond what the identifier already conveys.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus add_comment (which may also post text) or resolve_thread, nor on prerequisites such as the thread needing to be unresolved. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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 tools Inspect

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

Need Help?