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

huly-mcp-selfhost

by JoKeks2023
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

update_comment

Edit an existing comment by comment ID and issue identifier in a Huly workspace, updating its message content.

Instructions

Edit a comment by id

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>",
      "identifier": "<identifier>",
      "commentId": "<commentId>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "update_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYes
commentIdYesFrom list_comments
workspaceYes
identifierYesIssue id

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 supply title and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries nearly the full behavioral burden and supplies none of it. It does not say whether the edit replaces the entire comment text or merges, whether authorship matters, or whether the operation can fail silently; for a mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is terse rather than bloated, though the terseness comes at the cost of substance.

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?

A four-parameter required-all mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations needs the description to cover edit semantics and parameter meaning; instead it offers four words of purpose only.

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?

Schema coverage is 50% (only commentId and identifier are documented). The phrase "by id" is actually ambiguous because the schema has two id-like parameters (commentId and identifier/issue id), and the undocumented message parameter's replace-vs-append semantics are never clarified.

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?

"Edit a comment by id" gives a specific verb (edit) and resource (comment), so an agent can tell it mutates an existing comment rather than creating or deleting one. It does not explicitly contrast with add_comment or delete_comment, but the verb carries that distinction.

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 on when to use this versus add_comment or delete_comment, no mention of prerequisites such as needing the comment id from list_comments, and no statement about what can or cannot be edited.

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