drop2run-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Reply to a comment

reply_comment

Reply to a site comment thread as its owner, emailing participants and showing the response under your name. Resolve only when asked; publish a fix before saying it is fixed.

Instructions

Answers a comment thread on a site as its owner. The reply shows on the page under the owner's name, and the people in the thread are emailed. Publish a fix before replying that it is fixed. The thread stays open unless resolve is true, so the commenter can check and resolve it themselves; resolve only when the person asks. Only the account's owner can reply.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "thread": "<thread>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "reply_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	The reply, plain text.
`site`	Yes	Subdomain or site id, from list_sites.
`thread`	Yes	Identifier of the thread, from list_comments.
`resolve`	No	Resolve the thread with the reply. False by default.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Identifier of the thread, which reply_comment and resolve_comment take.
`url`	Yes	Opens the page at the thread.
`path`	Yes	The page it is on, or the document's path in a documents site.
`quote`	Yes	The words the commenter selected, or the text near a pin; use it to find the source.
`comments`	Yes
`outdated`	Yes	True when it was opened on an earlier version; the words it points at may have changed.
`resolved`	Yes	Whether it is resolved.
`selector`	Yes	The CSS selector of the element it is on.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.2.5Oct 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which only cover read-only/idempotency/open-world flags), the description discloses side effects the schema cannot: the reply is publicly attributed to the owner, thread participants are emailed, and the thread's state changes depending on `resolve`. It also states the permission requirement, which is exactly the kind of context annotations here do not carry.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the constraints; every sentence carries a distinct rule (side effects, sequencing, resolve behavior, permission). Slightly dense with interleaved policies, but nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a write tool with an email side effect and a thread-state toggle, the description covers authorization, sequencing, and the effect of each mode, leaving no meaningful gap for an agent deciding whether and how to call 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 `body`, `site`, and `thread` are already documented and the baseline would be 3. The description adds real semantic value for `resolve` by explaining its consequence (thread closes, versus staying open for the commenter) and warning against using it unprompted, which is more than the schema's one-line 'False by default'.

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+resource ('Answers a comment thread on a site as its owner') and immediately frames the scope as the owner's own voice on the page. It is clearly distinct from the sibling resolve_comment/reopen_comment tools, which manage thread state rather than posting content.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions ('Publish a fix before replying that it is fixed'), explicit exclusions ('resolve only when the person asks'), and an authorization gate ('Only the account's owner can reply'). It also tells the agent the default behavior of leaving the thread open so the commenter can resolve it themselves.

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