Skip to main content
Glama

add_comment

Add a comment to an issue, or reply to one of its comments ('replyTo' is a comment id from get_comments). A reply notifies the author of the comment it answers, whether or not they watch the issue — no mention needed — and they are told once even if also mentioned. Requires permission to comment in that project (read-only members cannot). Answers with 'notified' (who this actually reaches, the answered author included), 'answered' (for a reply: whose comment it answers, and 'notified' false with a 'reason' when they are not told) and 'unresolvedMentions' (what looked like a mention and reached nobody, each with a reason) — a wrong handle is stored as written and never refused, so that list is the only sign it did not land. Where the workspace has agents, [~agent:role] (e.g. [~agent:product]) calls one to answer in the thread on your behalf: 'agents' lists each call with its requestId and status, and an agent that will not come is in 'unresolvedMentions' with its reason (agent_unknown, agent_off, agent_plan, agent_budget, too_many).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesIssue key, e.g. 'UK-1'.
bodyYesComment body. Markdown is kept as written, and carries $…$ / $$…$$ LaTeX formulas and [~username] mentions (the username, which list_users hands you ready-made — never the display name).
replyToNoThe comment this one answers, as returned by get_comments — on the same issue and not deleted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses side effects: notifications to authors, permission requirements, mention behavior (unresolvedMentions with reasons), agent invocation, and return fields (notified, answered, unresolvedMentions). It even details edge cases like wrong handles being stored, going well beyond basic write behavior.

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 long but information-dense, front-loading the core action and reply behavior. It trades conciseness for completeness, which is justified given the complex return semantics. No filler; every sentence contributes, though it could be tightened.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mentions, notifications, agent calls) and lack of output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: return fields, error cases (unresolvedMentions), and permission prerequisites. No significant gaps.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds context for replyTo (notifies author) and body (mentions format), but these are somewhat redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description complements but does not heavily augment the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the action (add a comment to an issue) and the optional reply behavior via 'replyTo'. It distinguishes from siblings like update_comment and add_wiki_comment by focusing on issue comments and reply semantics. The resource (issue comment) is specific and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explains the reply use case (replying to a comment) and notes that replies notify the answered author. It implies when not to use (e.g., for wiki comments use add_wiki_comment) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Context is clear for a comment tool.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources