AgentDrive MCP Server

drive_comment

Add a comment to a file in a shared workspace. Optionally specify line numbers to comment on specific code lines.

Instructions

Add a comment to a file.

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_id": "<workspace_id>",
      "file_id": "<file_id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "drive_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	Comment text
`file_id`	Yes	File ID to comment on
`line_end`	No	End line number (optional)
`line_start`	No	Start line number (optional)
`workspace_id`	Yes	Workspace ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. The description merely states it adds a comment, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether comments are publicly visible, if the operation is reversible, or any 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Single sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include constraints or outcomes without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with 5 fully documented schema parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. Lacks details on behavior after adding a comment or limits, but sufficient for a straightforward operation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema sufficiently documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions.

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 clearly states the action (Add a comment to a file) and distinguishes from siblings like drive_write (editing file content) and drive_feedback (general feedback). However, it could be more specific about optional line ranges.

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. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing read access to the file) or when line parameters are appropriate.

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