Skip to main content
Glama
cdmx-in
by cdmx-in

add_task_comment

Add comments to tasks in Goodday project management to provide updates, instructions, or feedback for team collaboration.

Instructions

Add a comment to a task.

Args: task_id: The ID of the task user_id: User on behalf of whom API will execute update message: Comment text

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYes
user_idYes
messageYes

Implementation Reference

  • This is the core handler function implementing the 'add_task_comment' tool. It constructs a payload with user ID and message, then calls the Goodday API via make_goodday_request to POST a comment to the specified task, handling errors and success responses.
    async def add_task_comment(task_id: str, user_id: str, message: str) -> str:
        """Add a comment to a task.
    
        Args:
            task_id: The ID of the task
            user_id: User on behalf of whom API will execute update
            message: Comment text
        """
        data = {
            "userId": user_id,
            "message": message
        }
        
        result = await make_goodday_request(f"task/{task_id}/comment", "POST", data)
        
        if not result:
            return "Unable to add comment: No response received"
        
        if isinstance(result, dict) and "error" in result:
            return f"Unable to add comment: {result.get('error', 'Unknown error')}"
        
        return "Comment added successfully"
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds a comment (implying a write/mutation operation) but doesn't mention required permissions, whether comments are editable/deletable, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are brief but relevant. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects), output expectations, and sufficient parameter details, making it inadequate for reliable agent use.

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 compensate. It lists all three parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., ID formats, message length limits) or deeper context, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Add a comment') and resource ('to a task'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'update_task_status' or 'get_task_messages' that might also involve task interactions, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for adding comments, or how this differs from other task-related tools like 'update_task_status' or 'get_task_messages' in the sibling list.

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/cdmx-in/goodday-mcp'

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