getfly_add_opportunity_commentWRITE: Post a comment in the discussion of an opportunity, as the given user. Other users following the opportunity may be notified. POST /api/v6.1/opportunity/{id}/comments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | Comment text. | |
| user_id | Yes | User id posting the comment (getfly_list_users). | |
| opportunity_id | Yes | Opportunity id (the numeric id, not the code). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the write/non-idempotent profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the notification side effect on opportunity followers and that the comment is attributed to the supplied user, which an agent cannot infer from the structured fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short clauses: action, side effect, endpoint. The operation type is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a three-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers action, attribution, side effects and endpoint. It could mention success behavior or that the new comment id is returned, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: content, user_id and opportunity_id are all documented in the schema, including the note that opportunity_id is the numeric id and not the code. The description adds only the notion of posting "as the given user", which slightly reinforces user_id but does not extend beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb plus resource: "Post a comment in the discussion of an opportunity", fronted with a WRITE marker that separates it from the read-side sibling getfly_list_opportunity_comments. It stops short of naming that sibling, so the differentiation is implied by the verb rather than stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The "WRITE:" prefix and the endpoint signal that this creates rather than lists comments, which implies the usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites such as needing the opportunity to exist, and no named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.