Skip to main content
Glama
Selenium39

Qiita API MCP Server

update_comment

Modify existing comments on Qiita articles by providing a comment ID and updated Markdown content to edit or correct previous contributions.

Instructions

指定されたコメントを更新します

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commentIdYesコメントID
bodyYesコメントの本文(Markdown形式)

Implementation Reference

  • The handler definition for the 'update_comment' MCP tool. It includes Zod schema for input validation (commentId and body) and an execute function that delegates to the QiitaApiClient's updateComment method.
    update_comment: {
      schema: z.object({
        commentId: z.string(),
        body: z.string(),
      }),
      execute: async ({ commentId, body }, client) => client.updateComment(commentId, body),
    },
  • The MCP tool definition for 'update_comment', including name, description, and inputSchema for listing in tool discovery.
    {
      name: 'update_comment',
      description: '指定されたコメントを更新します',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          commentId: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'コメントID',
          },
          body: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'コメントの本文(Markdown形式)',
          },
        },
        required: ['commentId', 'body'],
      },
    },
  • The QiitaApiClient method that implements the core logic: authenticates, makes a PATCH request to Qiita API endpoint /comments/{commentId} with the new body, and returns the response.
    async updateComment(commentId: string, body: string) {
      this.assertAuthenticated();
      const response = await this.client.patch(`/comments/${commentId}`, { body });
      return response.data;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether the update is reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to the existing comment content. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is extremely concise - a single Japanese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and wastes no space on redundant details.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what permissions are needed, or how it differs from similar update operations. Given the complexity of update operations and the lack of structured metadata, more context is needed.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('更新します' - update) and the resource ('コメント' - comment), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'update_item', which also performs updates but on a different resource type.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_item' or 'create_comment'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical usage scenarios beyond the basic action.

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/Selenium39/mcp-server-qiita'

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