confluence_reply_to_commentReply to an existing Confluence comment thread by providing the parent comment ID and Markdown body, enabling threaded discussion updates on pages.
Reply to an existing comment thread on a Confluence page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | The reply content in Markdown format | |
| comment_id | Yes | The ID of the parent comment to reply to |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / descriptionRemoved value: -"Generic wrapper for non-object return types."v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: it does not warn that non-idempotent retries will create duplicate replies, does not mention permission or auth requirements, and does not say what happens when comment_id does not exist.
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?
One short sentence with no filler, and the key scope qualifier ("existing comment thread") is front-loaded. There is nothing to trim.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and both required params are schema-documented. However, for a non-idempotent write tool in a crowded Confluence comment family, the description omits the differentiation and failure-mode context an agent needs to call it correctly.
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 100% — body ("Markdown format") and comment_id ("ID of the parent comment") are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning such as ID format, nesting-depth limits, or whether body supports mentions, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 verb and resource ("Reply to an existing comment thread") plus the Confluence page context, so the action is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like confluence_add_comment or confluence_get_comments, so an agent must infer which is which.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus confluence_add_comment (a new top-level comment) or confluence_get_inline_comments. The word "existing" hints that a parent comment must already be present, but no preconditions, exclusions, or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.