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
`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	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.

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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description contributes almost no extra behavioral context beyond restating that the action targets an existing thread; it does not mention where the reply appears, permission needs, or retry safety.

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 sentence with no filler and front-loads the action and object. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification.

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?

For an 8-parameter mutation with closely related siblings like add_comment, resolve_thread, and list_review_threads, this description is too sparse. It leaves identifier selection, retry behavior, and differentiation from add_comment unexplained, so an agent must infer critical usage details from other sources.

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?

The schema leaves body, targetId, and threadId without descriptions, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining them. It also does not clarify when to use articleId versus articleTitle or targetId versus threadId, so the moderate 63% schema coverage is not supplemented.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Reply,' and identifies the resource, 'existing review thread.' It clearly indicates a write action on a thread, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as add_comment or resolve_thread.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites like needing to find the thread first via list_review_threads. The phrase 'existing' only implies one prerequisite and does not help an agent choose between this and add_comment.

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?