Verified Handles

Comment on an application

comment_on_application

Add a message to an application’s thread — the applicant sees it on their application (and is not emailed). To ask them something and wait for the answer, use ask_applicant. Audited. Dry run by default.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	The message — the applicant sees it.
`dry_run`	No	true (the default): write nothing — show the change and the exact request it would send. false: make the change.
`application_id`	Yes	The application’s id (list_applications).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	A dry run: what to do next to make the change, in words.
`result`	No	A real run: the route’s own answer, where the tool adds facts of its own beside it.
`confirm`	No	A dry run of a change that needs it: the exact target to send back as `confirm` with dry_run: false.
`dry_run`	No	true: a dry run, which wrote nothing. Absent from a real run.
`replayed`	No	A real run with an idempotency_key already used for this change: the first call’s answer, given back; nothing was written now.
`would_send`	No	A dry run: the exact request the real run would send (`method`, `path`, any `headers` such as an Idempotency-Key, and its `body`, `form` or `query`), or the requests, in order.
`may_edit_live`	No	A dry run of a live edit: whether this key’s account may edit this entry live.
`refused_because`	No	A dry run the real run would be refused for: why, in words.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds traits beyond the annotations: the comment is visible to the applicant, does NOT trigger an email, the action is audited, and it runs as a dry run by default. These are concrete, consequential behaviors (safety-by-default, audit trail, notification semantics) not derivable from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/idempotentHint alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its visible effect, then the alternative, then the audit/dry-run notes. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With annotations, a 100%-covered schema, and an output schema present, the description supplies exactly the missing context (visibility, notification, audit, dry-run default) an agent needs to call it correctly. Nothing material is omitted.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so body, dry_run, and application_id are already fully documented (including the dry_run default and body length limits). The description only restates the 'applicant sees it' semantics already present in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (add a message) and resource (an application's thread) and immediately defines the scope ('applicant sees it on their application'). It names the sibling ask_applicant and distinguishes itself from it, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly gives the when-not/alternative: 'To ask them something and wait for the answer, use ask_applicant.' The condition that selects the alternative is stated, leaving nothing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Verified Handles 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.