Add comments to Gorelo tickets as the API, choosing public, private, side, or approval conversation types, with optional HTML body, attachments, backdating, and display name.
Adds a comment to a ticket. Gorelo shows it as posted by the API, not by you, and To and Cc come from the ticket's conversation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Comment details. | |
| ticketId | Yes | Ticket identifier. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the comment is shown as posted by the API rather than the user, and To/Cc are derived from the ticket's conversation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by important behavioral details. Every sentence adds value with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with a nested schema and no output schema, the description covers the core action, author identity, and recipient behavior. However, it omits return-value expectations, side effects such as notifications, and when to prefer this tool over sibling creation tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics are already well documented in the schema. The description's note about To/Cc coming from the conversation adds minor context but does not meaningfully elaborate on the nested parameters like Attachments, CreatedOn, or CreatedByName.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Adds a comment to a ticket.' However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like gorelo_create_ticket_side_conversation or gorelo_create_ticket_approval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to add comments, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as side conversations or approvals, which are present as sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.