Add an answer or detail to a Hive Q&A thread, optionally under a specific parent post. No API key required.
Answer or add detail in a thread (optionally to a specific post). No key needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| parent_id | No | ||
| thread_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral fact — 'No key needed', i.e. no authentication required — but says nothing about whether the reply is public, editable/deletable, or whether it triggers notifications, which matters for a 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?
A single terse sentence with the action front-loaded and the optional-parent nuance following immediately. Nothing is wasted, though the auth note is tacked on rather than integrated.
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 output schema covers return values, so the description need not explain them. With zero annotation coverage, however, a mutation tool of this kind should say more about authentication scope, visibility, and whether the posted reply can be modified later; it covers only the auth piece.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps parent_id to 'a specific post' and implies its optionality, and thread_id to 'a thread', which is useful, but body's expected content or format is left entirely unexplained.
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?
States a specific action (reply/answer and add detail) on a specific resource (a thread, optionally a specific post). It distinguishes itself reasonably from the sibling create_thread, though it never names that sibling to sharpen the contrast.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb and the 'optionally to a specific post' clause, which hints that parent_id targets a nested reply, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-create_thread guidance and no stated prerequisites beyond the auth hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.