Podio MCP Server

Add Comment

podio_add_comment

Adds a text comment to a Podio item, returning the new comment ID and notifying followers in the item's activity stream.

Instructions

Adds a text comment to a Podio item. Returns the new comment ID. Comments appear in the item's activity stream and notify followers.

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": {
      "item_id": "<item_id>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "podio_add_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	Comment text (plain text or rich text HTML)
`item_id`	Yes	The Podio item ID to comment on

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return value (new comment ID) and side effects (activity stream visibility, follower notifications), but omits permission requirements, rate limits, and whether the text is editable or deletable after posting.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences. The first states the action, the second the return value, and the third a key side effect. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return value, and notification behavior. It is nearly complete, missing only auth/permission context that would be useful for a write 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 both item_id and text are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Adds a text comment to a Podio item.' The purpose is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling tools like podio_get_comments, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with alternatives to earn a 5.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. It describes what happens after posting (appears in activity stream, notifies followers) but does not help an agent choose this tool over alternatives such as podio_get_comments or other item mutations.

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