cf_create_commentPost a comment on a product, offer, or retailer. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | Comment text | |
| offer_id | No | Offer UUID to comment on | |
| product_id | No | Product UUID to comment on | |
| retailer_id | No | Retailer UUID to comment on | |
| parent_comment_id | No | Parent comment UUID (for replies) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the authentication requirement. However, it does not disclose what happens after posting (e.g., whether the comment is immediately visible, any moderation, or side effects). With all annotations false, the description provides only minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious write operation.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and target. No wasted words, and the authentication note is essential.
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?
The tool has 5 optional parameters (only content is required), but the description does not explain that at least one target ID should be provided, nor does it describe the return value or error conditions. Given no output schema, this leaves the agent with some uncertainty, though the schema partially compensates.
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%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'Offer UUID to comment on'). The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond repeating the target types, so it relies on the schema, which is sufficient.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Post a comment') and the target resources ('product, offer, or retailer'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cf_list_comments which list comments. It is specific and actionable.
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 description implies when to use (when posting a comment) and highlights the authentication requirement. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but none are needed for this straightforward create operation; siblings are mostly read/list tools.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes, particularly cf_category_hierarchy vs cf_list_categories (both provide category taxonomy paths) and cf_search_offers vs cf_list_offers (both return offers). Descriptions help, but the boundaries between category-related tools and offer listing/search could confuse an agent.
All tool names follow a consistent cf_ verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., cf_add_wish, cf_list_retailers, cf_search_offers). The convention is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer tool behavior from the name.
With 22 tools, the server covers a broad domain but is slightly heavy. The count is reasonable for a price-comparison service with search, product, price, retailer, user, and comment functionality, though it exceeds the typical ideal range.
The toolset provides solid coverage of the price-comparison domain: search, categories, offers, products, retailers, price history/summary, deal analysis, wishlist, comments/reviews, and user search history. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no product-specific reviews, no comment edit/delete), but core workflows are fully supported.