Flow Boards MCP Server

update_comment

Modify the text of an existing comment. Provide the comment ID and the new text to replace the current content.

Instructions

Update a comment's text.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "comment": "<comment>"
    },
    "name": "update_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Comment ID
`format`	No		text
`comment`	Yes	New comment text

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

There are no annotations, and the description provides no behavioral detail. It does not mention whether the comment must exist, what happens to the previous text, any auth requirements, or the return value. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description omits essential context for a mutation operation, such as idempotency, error cases, or whether the update appends or replaces text. The lack of annotations and output schema increases the burden on the description, which it does not meet.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers 67% of parameters, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The 'format' parameter lacks a schema description, and the tool description does not explain its role or the default behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('comment'), and clearly identifies the scope ('text'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_comment, get_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 Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or requirements mentioned. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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