Flow Boards MCP Server

add_comment

Post a comment to a specific ticket on Flow Boards. Share updates, feedback, or notes directly within your project management workflow.

Instructions

Add a comment to a ticket.

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": {
      "ticketId": "<ticketId>",
      "comment": "<comment>"
    },
    "name": "add_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`format`	No	Comment format	text
`comment`	Yes	Comment text
`ticketId`	Yes	Ticket ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing any side effects, return value, permissions required, or whether the ticket must exist. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the core action, achieving excellent conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse to be considered complete. It does not explain return values, the optional 'format' parameter, or any operational context such as error conditions or idempotency, leaving the agent under-informed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already documents all three parameters and their meanings. The description adds no additional parameter-related context, so a 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 'Add a comment to a ticket' uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('comment to a ticket'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_comments, update_comment, and delete_comment. It unambiguously states the action and target.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_comment or delete_comment. It does not mention prerequisites like the ticket needing to exist, nor does it reference sibling tools or give any usage context beyond the bare action.

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