Skip to main content
Glama
bim-ba

ycli

by bim-ba
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Edit Tracker issue comment

tracker_comments_update
Idempotent

Replace the text of an existing Tracker issue comment by providing issue key, comment ID, and corrected body. Returns the updated comment.

Instructions

Replace the text of an existing comment on a Tracker issue.

Get comment_id from comments_list. Returns the updated comment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesTyped request body for ``PATCH /issues/{key}/comments/{id}`` (edit a comment).
issue_keyYesIssue key, e.g. QUEUE-123.
comment_idYesComment id (numeric ``id`` or ``longId``), from ``comments_list``.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.122.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / comment_id / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / comment_id / type
      Removed value: -"string"
    • addedInput schema / properties / issue_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Issue key, e.g. QUEUE-123.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / key
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Issue key, e.g. QUEUE-123.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "key",
-  "comment_id",
-  "body"
-]New value: +[
+  "issue_key",
+  "comment_id",
+  "body"
+]
  2. First observedv0.67.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: 'Replace the text' signals a full overwrite of the existing body (what gets destroyed) rather than an append, and it discloses the return value. Auth requirements and failure modes are still unstated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the parameter hint and return note. Efficient and free of filler; only the comment_id hint is mildly redundant with the schema.

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 3-param mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the action, the parameter source, and the return value, and annotations carry the idempotency/safety profile. Missing only permission/prerequisite context to be fully self-contained.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, the schema already documents issue_key, comment_id and body.text (including YFM markdown). The description only repeats the comment_id provenance already stated in the schema, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('Replace the text'), the resource ('existing comment on a Tracker issue'), and the mutation mode (full replacement). This clearly separates it from tracker_comments_create/delete. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-name sibling tracker_entities_comments_update, which an agent could easily confuse.

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 tells the agent where to obtain comment_id ('from comments_list'), which is real routing guidance, but says nothing about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what preconditions (e.g. ownership/permissions) apply. Usage is implied by the verb rather than stated.

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