openproject-mcp

Comment on work package

op_comment_work_package

Add a markdown comment to a work package activity stream, optionally with a file attachment.

Instructions

Add a markdown comment to a work package activity stream. Optionally attach a file and embed it inline using attachFilePath.

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": "op_comment_work_package"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`comment`	Yes
`notify`	No
`attachFilePath`	No	Local file path to upload and embed inline as ![](attachment:filename)
`attachFileName`	No	Override attached file name (defaults to basename of attachFilePath)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but omits key behaviors: it does not disclose that the 'notify' parameter controls notifications, or that attaching a file modifies the comment text. It also fails to mention any authentication or permission requirements.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, and no unnecessary words. Effectively communicates the core functionality and optional attachment feature.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete. It lacks details on required parameters (id, comment), optional notify behavior, and attachment semantics beyond embedding.

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 low (40%), and the description only adds meaning for 'attachFilePath' (embed inline). It does not explain 'id' (work package ID), 'comment' (markdown text), 'notify' (triggers notifications?), or 'attachFileName' (override).

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Add' and the resource 'markdown comment to a work package activity stream', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like op_create_work_package or op_update_work_package. The mention of optional file attachment adds specificity.

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. For instance, it does not mention that to update work package fields one should use op_update_work_package or that to list activities one should use op_list_work_package_activities.

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