Markdown by mdedit.ai

Reply to a review thread

reply_to_thread

Reply to an existing review thread.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes
`targetId`	No
`threadId`	Yes
`articleId`	No	Internal document identifier when already available. Omit it when the user referred to the document by title.
`commandId`	No
`workspaceId`	No	Internal workspace identifier when already available. Omit it when the user referred to a workspace by name or has only one workspace.
`articleTitle`	No	Human-visible document title. Prefer this over asking the user for an internal document identifier.
`workspaceName`	No	Human-visible workspace name. Prefer this over asking the user for an internal workspace identifier.

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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedAug 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are all false and thus provide no safety or side-effect profile. The description only says 'reply', which implies a write action, but it does not disclose whether the thread state changes, whether the reply is appended, or any permissions or idempotency concerns.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to under-specification rather than representing deliberate efficiency.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the definition is too thin for a mutation tool with eight parameters and many siblings. It lacks usage conditions, identifier-selection guidance, and behavior after replying, so an agent has to infer most call semantics.

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 only 50%, and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. Required 'threadId' and 'body' are left to be inferred, and the conditional relationship between identifier pairs (articleId/articleTitle, workspaceId/workspaceName) is only explained partially in the schema.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Reply' to an 'existing review thread'. This distinguishes the action from thread creation or resolution, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'add_comment', leaving some ambiguity.

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 instead of add_comment, resolve_thread, or other siblings. The word 'existing' implies the target must already be created, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes across article CRUD, review workflows, publishing, and conversion/export. Minor confusion can arise between convert_document and start_article_export (and their corresponding status checkers), but the descriptions explicitly differentiate arbitrary content conversion from exporting stored documents. The render_article tool's broad contextual wording overlaps conceptually with several actions, though its actual function (opening the reader) is unique.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 22 tool names follow a strict snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as list_articles, accept_suggestion, start_article_export, and unpublish_article. There are no mixed conventions, vague verbs, or camelCase outliers, making the naming highly predictable.

Tool Count3/5

At 22 tools, the server sits above the ideal 3-15 range and feels somewhat heavy for an MCP surface. The inclusion of record_article_app_event, a component-only telemetry tool with no agent-facing value, adds to this heaviness. However, the breadth of the domain—documents, collaboration, publishing, and conversion—largely justifies the count.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers article lifecycle, review threads, publishing, export/conversion, and presence well, covering most common workflows. A notable gap is the lack of any delete_article or trash operation, leaving no way to remove documents. Additionally, updates are limited to anchored edits via edit_article, with no direct full-content replacement option.

Resources

Need Help?