Skip to main content
Glama

openspec_reply_review

Reply to a review comment on a proposal, design, specification, or task to provide feedback and keep the review process moving.

Instructions

Reply to a review comment

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetTypeYes
targetIdYes
reviewIdYes
bodyYes
authorNoai

Implementation Reference

  • Tool registration and handler for 'openspec_reply_review'. Registers the tool with input schema (targetType, targetId, reviewId, body, author) and implements the handler that calls reviewManager.addReply().
    server.registerTool(
      'openspec_reply_review',
      {
        description: 'Reply to a review comment',
        inputSchema: {
          targetType: z.enum(['proposal', 'design', 'spec', 'tasks']),
          targetId: z.string(),
          reviewId: z.string(),
          body: z.string(),
          author: z.string().default('ai'),
        },
      },
      async ({ targetType, targetId, reviewId, body, author }) => {
        const reply = await reviewManager.addReply(
          targetType as ReviewTargetType,
          targetId,
          reviewId,
          author,
          body
        );
    
        if (!reply) {
          return {
            content: [{ type: 'text', text: `❌ Review ${reviewId} not found` }],
            isError: true,
          };
        }
    
        return {
          content: [{ type: 'text', text: `💭 Reply added to ${reviewId}` }],
        };
      }
    );
  • Input schema definition for openspec_reply_review: targetType (enum), targetId (string), reviewId (string), body (string), author (string with default 'ai').
    {
      description: 'Reply to a review comment',
      inputSchema: {
        targetType: z.enum(['proposal', 'design', 'spec', 'tasks']),
        targetId: z.string(),
        reviewId: z.string(),
        body: z.string(),
        author: z.string().default('ai'),
      },
    },
  • src/index.ts:65-65 (registration)
    Registration point where registerReviewTools is called with the server and reviewManager instance.
    registerReviewTools(server, reviewManager);
  • The addReply() method in ReviewManager that stores a reply on a review comment. Finds the review by ID, creates a ReviewReply with UUID, pushes it, and saves.
    async addReply(
      targetType: ReviewTargetType,
      targetId: string,
      reviewId: string,
      author: string,
      body: string
    ): Promise<ReviewReply | null> {
      const reviews = await this.loadReviews(targetType, targetId);
      const review = reviews.find((r) => r.id === reviewId);
      
      if (!review) {
        return null;
      }
    
      const reply: ReviewReply = {
        id: randomUUID().substring(0, 8),
        author,
        body,
        createdAt: new Date().toISOString(),
      };
    
      review.replies.push(reply);
      await this.saveReviews(targetType, targetId, reviews);
      
      return reply;
    }
  • Type definition for ReviewReply interface used by the reply handler.
    export interface ReviewReply {
      id: string;
      author: string;
      body: string;
      createdAt: string;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the action without revealing side effects (e.g., whether it updates a review thread, sends notifications, or requires edit permissions). This is insufficient for an informed invocation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity. It earns its place but could include more details without becoming verbose.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected format of 'body', the effect of replying (e.g., thread update), or any constraints like required prior review existence. The return value is not described, but with no output schema, the description should cover it.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. The 5 parameters (targetType, targetId, reviewId, body, author) are undocumented in the description, forcing the agent to rely solely on schema names, which may be ambiguous (e.g., 'body' as markdown? 'author' role?).

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 'Reply to a review comment' is a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'openspec_add_review' (creating a new review) and 'openspec_resolve_review' (closing a review), making the tool's specific action unambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'openspec_add_review' or 'openspec_resolve_review'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Lumiaqian/openspec-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server