Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
huly-mcp-selfhost

huly-mcp-selfhost

by JoKeks2023
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

reply_to_message

Posts a reply in the thread of an existing Huly message or comment, keeping related discussion organized under the original item.

Instructions

Reply in the thread of a message or comment

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": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>",
      "messageId": "<messageId>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "reply_to_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYes
messageIdYesMessage id (list_messages, list_comments, list_thread)
workspaceYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.5.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false. The description does not explain whether the reply is posted as the authenticated user, whether it triggers notifications, what permissions are required, or what happens when replying to a comment versus a message.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in guidance and behavioral detail.

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?

This is a mutation tool with three required parameters, sparse annotation coverage, and low schema description coverage. The description does not compensate by explaining thread semantics, required permissions, target workspace behavior, or return expectations.

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?

Only messageId has schema documentation, and it usefully points to list_messages, list_comments, and list_thread for obtaining IDs. However, the description adds no meaning for the message body or workspace parameters, leaving two of three required parameters undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and target: replying within the thread of a message or comment. It is clear enough to distinguish from send_message or add_comment at a high level, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus send_message, add_comment, or update_message. The phrase 'Reply in the thread' implies the use case, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools