Skip to main content
Glama
chrisprobably

Standup MCP Server

by chrisprobably
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

add_comment

Post a comment to a Standup kanban card with optional @mentions and clickable option buttons for structured questions.

Instructions

Add a comment to a card, with optional @mentions and clickable option buttons

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesComment text (supports markdown)
cardIdYesThe card identifier
agentIdNoIdentifier of the column agent posting the comment, so it is attributed to that agent
boardIdYesThe board identifier
optionsNoClickable option buttons for structured questions
mentionsNoUsernames to @mention

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / agentId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Identifier of the column agent posting the comment, so it is attributed to that agent",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
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 disclosure burden. It reveals the optional @mentions and clickable option buttons, but says nothing about side effects such as notifying mentioned users, attribution behavior, or what the call returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action comes first and the optional capabilities follow.

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?

For a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin – it omits permission requirements, side effects like notifications, and any indication of the return value. It is adequate to identify the action but not to call it confidently.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented, including text markdown support, mentions, and options. The description merely repeats the mentions/options concepts, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('add a comment to a card') and names the two optional capabilities. It is clearly distinguishable from get_comments, though it doesn't explicitly note sibling relationships beyond the read/write split.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., board/card must exist), and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and verb.

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