kanboard-mcp

update_comment

Update the body of an existing Kanboard comment by providing its ID and new content. Returns the comment ID on success.

Instructions

Update the body of an existing Kanboard comment. To remove a comment use delete_comment instead. Returns { ok: true, 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": {
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "update_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`comment_id`	Yes	Comment id to update (required).
`content`	Yes	New comment body text (required, non-empty).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedMay 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral burden. It discloses the return value but does not mention permissions, error handling, or idempotency. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences: purpose first, then alternative, then return value. No wasted words, information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with 2 required params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternative, and return. Missing error details, but still fairly complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so description adds little beyond restating 'New comment body text'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update the body of an existing Kanboard comment', specifying the action (update) and resource (comment). It also distinguishes from the delete_comment sibling tool.

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?

Includes explicit guidance: 'To remove a comment use delete_comment instead', telling the agent when not to use this tool and directing to an alternative.

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