kanboard-mcp

create_comment

Add a comment to a Kanboard task with automatic author assignment. Returns the comment ID on success.

Instructions

Create a comment on a Kanboard task. The comment author is automatically set to the authenticated user (via getMe() cache); do NOT pass user_id — it is injected server-side. To edit a comment's body use update_comment; to remove one use delete_comment. Returns { comment_id } on success.

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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "create_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_id`	Yes	ID of the task to comment on.
`content`	Yes	Comment body text (required, non-empty).
`reference`	No	Optional external reference (e.g. issue URL).
`visibility`	No	Comment visibility level. Default: 'app-user'.	app-user

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedMay 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses that the comment author is automatically set to the authenticated user, the server-side injection of user_id, and the return value. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits.

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 sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every sentence adds essential information.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete: it explains behavior, return, and usage context, leaving no obvious gaps.

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 describes all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying that user_id is not a parameter and explaining the return value, going beyond 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 identifies the action (create), resource (comment on a Kanboard task), and distinguishes from siblings by referencing update_comment and delete_comment.

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 instructs not to pass user_id (it is injected) and directs to alternatives for editing or removing comments, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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