add_commentAttach a comment to any work item in a Plane project by providing project ID, work item ID, and comment text. Supports raw HTML or plain text.
Add a comment to a work item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comment | Yes | Comment body; plain text is wrapped in HTML, or pass raw HTML. | |
| project_id | Yes | Project UUID. | |
| work_item_id | Yes | Work item UUID. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action ('Add') without covering side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what happens on success. Some useful detail exists in the schema for the comment parameter, but not in the tool description itself.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is minimal and adds little beyond the tool's name.
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 simple three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, it leaves the agent without behavioral context such as permissions or side effects, so it is only adequately complete rather than fully.
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 the parameters are already well documented. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the structured schema carries the load, making the baseline score appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add a comment to a work item.' It clearly identifies the operation and target, distinguishing it from comment-related siblings like list_comments, update_comment, and delete_comment, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for commenting on a work item. It relies entirely on the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.