Skip to main content
Glama
MustafaPatharia

ProofHub MCP Server

proofhub_create_comment

Post a comment on a ProofHub task by specifying the project, list, task IDs and the comment text.

Instructions

Post a new comment on a ProofHub task.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
list_idYes
task_idYes
descriptionYesComment text (plain text or HTML).

Implementation Reference

  • Tool schema definition for proofhub_create_comment, declaring input parameters (project_id, list_id, task_id, description) with all required.
    name: 'proofhub_create_comment',
    description: 'Post a new comment on a ProofHub task.',
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        project_id:  { type: 'string' },
        list_id:     { type: 'string' },
        task_id:     { type: 'string' },
        description: { type: 'string', description: 'Comment text (plain text or HTML).' },
      },
      required: ['project_id', 'list_id', 'task_id', 'description'],
    },
  • index.js:102-187 (registration)
    Registration of the tool via the ListToolsRequestSchema handler. The tool is registered alongside other tools in the tools array.
    server.setRequestHandler(ListToolsRequestSchema, async () => ({
      tools: [
        {
          name: 'proofhub_parse_url',
          description:
            'Parse a ProofHub task URL and return the project ID, list ID, and task ID embedded in it. ' +
            'Use this as the first step before calling other ProofHub tools.',
          inputSchema: {
            type: 'object',
            properties: {
              url: { type: 'string', description: 'Full ProofHub task URL, e.g. https://kpi.proofhub.com/bappswift/#app/todos/project-7189443252/list-270280503800/task-514774338823' },
            },
            required: ['url'],
          },
        },
        {
          name: 'proofhub_get_task',
          description: 'Fetch full task details (title, description, stage, custom fields, assignees) from ProofHub.',
          inputSchema: {
            type: 'object',
            properties: {
              project_id: { type: 'string' },
              list_id:    { type: 'string' },
              task_id:    { type: 'string' },
            },
            required: ['project_id', 'list_id', 'task_id'],
          },
        },
        {
          name: 'proofhub_get_comments',
          description: 'Fetch all comments on a ProofHub task, including their full text.',
          inputSchema: {
            type: 'object',
            properties: {
              project_id: { type: 'string' },
              list_id:    { type: 'string' },
              task_id:    { type: 'string' },
            },
            required: ['project_id', 'list_id', 'task_id'],
          },
        },
        {
          name: 'proofhub_get_task_with_bug_links',
          description:
            'One-shot tool: given a ProofHub task URL (or IDs), fetches the task description AND all comments, ' +
            'then extracts any bug-tracker links (Jira, Linear, GitHub Issues, GitLab, YouTrack, ClickUp, Asana, etc.) ' +
            'found in any of those texts. Returns the task data plus a deduplicated list of bug links.',
          inputSchema: {
            type: 'object',
            properties: {
              url:        { type: 'string', description: 'Full ProofHub task URL (preferred). If supplied, project_id/list_id/task_id are ignored.' },
              project_id: { type: 'string' },
              list_id:    { type: 'string' },
              task_id:    { type: 'string' },
            },
          },
        },
        {
          name: 'proofhub_create_comment',
          description: 'Post a new comment on a ProofHub task.',
          inputSchema: {
            type: 'object',
            properties: {
              project_id:  { type: 'string' },
              list_id:     { type: 'string' },
              task_id:     { type: 'string' },
              description: { type: 'string', description: 'Comment text (plain text or HTML).' },
            },
            required: ['project_id', 'list_id', 'task_id', 'description'],
          },
        },
        {
          name: 'proofhub_get_task_history',
          description: 'Fetch the activity history of a ProofHub task (stage changes, edits, etc.).',
          inputSchema: {
            type: 'object',
            properties: {
              project_id: { type: 'string' },
              list_id:    { type: 'string' },
              task_id:    { type: 'string' },
            },
            required: ['project_id', 'list_id', 'task_id'],
          },
        },
      ],
    }));
  • Handler implementation for proofhub_create_comment. Takes project_id, list_id, task_id, and description from args, then POSTs a new comment to the ProofHub API endpoint and returns the created comment as JSON.
    // ── proofhub_create_comment ──────────────────────────────────────────
    if (name === 'proofhub_create_comment') {
      const { project_id, list_id, task_id, description } = args;
      const comment = await apiPost(
        `/projects/${project_id}/todolists/${list_id}/tasks/${task_id}/comments`,
        { description }
      );
      return {
        content: [{
          type: 'text',
          text: JSON.stringify(comment, null, 2),
        }],
      };
    }
  • Helper function apiPost used by the handler to make the POST request to the ProofHub API with the comment data.
    async function apiPost(url, body) {
      try {
        const res = await http.post(url, body);
        return res.data;
      } catch (err) {
        throw new Error(`ProofHub API error ${err.response?.status}: ${JSON.stringify(err.response?.data) || err.message}`);
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, and the description lacks disclosure of side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. As a write operation, minimal transparency about idempotency or responses is critical.

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 concise (7 words) and front-loaded with the action. However, for a 4-parameter tool, slightly more structure (e.g., listing parameters) would improve clarity without adding significant length.

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 of 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how parameters connect, response format, or constraints, leaving the agent without enough context for correct invocation.

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?

With only 25% schema coverage (only 'description' has a brief description), the description does not add meaning for project_id, list_id, or task_id. The general statement 'Post a new comment' fails to clarify parameter roles or relationships.

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 'Post a new comment on a ProofHub task' clearly identifies the verb (post), resource (comment), and context (on a task), distinguishing it from sibling tools like proofhub_get_comments.

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 tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions is provided. For a creation tool, explicit context about task existence or complementary use with proofhub_get_comments would improve usability.

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/MustafaPatharia/proofhub-mcp'

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