Skip to main content
Glama

update_comment

Edit a comment on an issue: pass 'body' to replace the whole of it, or 'edits' to change part of it — exact find-and-replace against the comment as get_comments hands it back, each 'oldText' occurring exactly once. One body axis per call. With 'edits' the answer says where each one landed rather than giving the comment back, so correcting one number in a long comment costs neither a resend nor a re-read. Nothing here takes a version and none is needed: an 'oldText' is matched against the comment as it stands now, so an edit whose text somebody has since rewritten is refused rather than applied over their words. The author may edit their own comment; anyone with full write access in the project may edit any. Answers with 'notified' — and note that this is only the people the edit newly reaches: names already present in the old text are not notified again, and the comment is not re-announced to watchers.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesIssue key the comment is on, e.g. 'UK-1'.
bodyNoThe new body, replacing the old one entirely. Markdown is kept as written, and carries $…$ / $$…$$ LaTeX formulas and [~username] mentions.
editsNoExact replacements in the comment, changing part of it in place. Matched against the body as get_comments returns it — stored as written, so what you read is what an 'oldText' has to equal, whitespace and line breaks included. Every edit is looked for in that text, not in what the edits before it produced; if any one does not fit, none is applied.
commentIdYesThe comment's id, as returned by get_comments or add_comment.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers: it explains matching against the comment as it currently stands, refusal of stale edits, atomicity ('if any one does not fit, none is applied'), permission rules, and exactly who gets notified. This goes far beyond the schema and gives the agent a precise side-effect model.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place: modes, matching rules, output behavior, permissions, and notifications. There is no filler and no redundancy with the input schema.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, it covers both call shapes, how the response differs between 'body' and 'edits', notification behavior, permission requirements, and failure behavior. An agent can predict consequences before invoking it.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful parameter interaction guidance: 'One body axis per call', exact text-matching semantics against get_comments output, and the explicit statement that no version parameter exists. It reinforces and clarifies the schema rather than just repeating it.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Edit a comment on an issue') and immediately distinguishes the two operational modes: 'body' for full replacement and 'edits' for partial find-and-replace. This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like add_comment and update_wiki_comment.

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?

Gives explicit internal usage guidance: use 'body' to replace the whole comment, 'edits' to change part, and explains when the edits mode avoids a resend or re-read. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as add_comment or update_wiki_comment, so it stops just short of full when-not-to-use coverage.

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