Skip to main content
Glama

add_comment_with_image

Add a comment with an inline image to a Plane task. Uploads the image as a task attachment, embeds it in the comment HTML, and shows it in the task's Attachments tab.

Instructions

Post a comment with an embedded inline image.

Workflow: upload the file as a task attachment (which gives a stable Plane asset URL), build an tag with the absolute URL, splice it into body_html, sanitize, and post the comment. The image will also appear in the task's Attachments tab — Plane's public API doesn't expose a comment-scoped asset entity type, so any inline image is also a regular attachment by design.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
altNoAlt text for the embedded image. Defaults to filename.
issue_idYesTask UUID.
body_htmlYesComment body as HTML. If it contains the literal token {image}, the uploaded image's <img> tag replaces it. Otherwise the image is prepended above the body.
mime_typeNoMIME type override. Auto-detected from extension if omitted.
image_pathYesAbsolute or CWD-relative path to a local image file (png, jpeg, gif, webp, svg, bmp, tiff).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect (image also appears in Attachments tab), the workflow steps (upload, build img tag, splice into body_html, sanitize), and the reason (API limitation). This goes beyond the schema and provides significant behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a compact workflow paragraph. Every sentence earns its place, though the workflow paragraph is dense and could be split for readability. Still, it remains concise with no fluff.

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 tool with a multi-step workflow and side effects, the description covers the essential behaviors: uploading, embedding, sanitizing, and the attachment side effect. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Missing minor details like error conditions or file prerequisites, but overall complete for a complex tool.

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%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description mainly recaps the workflow rather than adding per-parameter meaning. It does clarify how body_html's {image} token interacts with the image upload, but the schema already contains that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool posts a comment with an embedded inline image, with a specific verb ('Post') and resource ('comment with ... image'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_comment by emphasizing the inline image aspect and the upload workflow.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool, including the workflow and the design rationale (no comment-scoped asset entity). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like add_comment for plain comments, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/babazulu/plane-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server