SyncPen MCP Server

syncpen_reply_comment

Reply to a comment thread under the agent's name and notify @mentioned members.

Instructions

Reply to a comment thread. The reply is posted under the agent's name and notifies any @mentioned members.

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": {
      "commentId": "<commentId>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "syncpen_reply_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	The reply text. Supports @mentions of document members.
`commentId`	Yes	The ID of the comment to reply to (from syncpen_list_comments).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.4Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the reply is posted under the agent's name and notifies @mentioned members, adding useful behavioral context. However, it lacks information on visibility, editability, rate limits, or other side effects of the write operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no extraneous details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not explain return values or success/failure indicators. For a write tool, this is a gap. However, the description covers the basic mechanics of replying and mentioning, which is adequate for a simple 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds that 'body' supports @mentions (already in schema) and 'commentId' comes from syncpen_list_comments (useful context). While it provides some additional value, it does not significantly expand on the schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Reply to a comment thread' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like syncpen_resolve_comment (resolve) and syncpen_list_comments (list), and adds context about posting under agent's name and @mention notifications.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage (to reply to a comment) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like syncpen_resolve_comment or syncpen_list_comments. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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