Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Archicad-MCP

Archicad-MCP

by alesdev88
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Comment on an issue

add_issue_comment
Destructive

Add a text comment to an existing issue using its ID, enabling delivery-readiness QA on Archicad projects.

Instructions

Add a text comment to an existing issue, addressed by its id (requires the Tapir add-on).

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": {
      "issue_id": "<issue_id>",
      "comment": "<comment>"
    },
    "name": "add_issue_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
portNo
commentYes
issue_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns with a write operation. It adds the useful Tapir add-on dependency, but it does not describe any side effects or the permanent nature of the comment, which is relevant given the destructive hint.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and target, followed by the add-on prerequisite in parentheses. There is no redundant wording.

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-required-parameter mutation with an output schema available, the description plus annotations cover the core usage and dependency adequately. The only notable omission is the port parameter, which is minor since it is optional and defaults to null.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does so for issue_id ('addressed by its id') and comment ('text comment'), but the optional port parameter remains entirely unexplained, leaving a gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('text comment to an existing issue'), and clearly identifies that the target is addressed by its id. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_issue or attach_elements_to_issue.

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 states the prerequisite that the Tapir add-on must be installed and implies the issue must already exist, but it does not name alternatives or explicitly explain when not to use this tool. The intended use case is clear but exclusion guidance is missing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools