Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
devflow

devflow

by cocaxcode
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

df_comment

Add a comment to a Jira issue with explicit confirmation. Requires issue key, comment text, and confirm: true to publish.

Instructions

Añadir un comentario a un issue de Jira. Requiere confirm: true para ejecutar.

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": {
      "issueKey": "<issueKey>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "df_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesTexto del comentario
confirmNotrue para publicar el comentario
issueKeyYesClave del issue (ej: PROJ-123)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.15

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the confirmation guard, which is useful, but it does not mention permissions, idempotency, reversibility, or what happens if confirm is false. For a mutating tool, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the action and then stating the critical execution requirement. There is no filler or redundant content.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers all parameters, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain return values, side effects, or behavior when confirm is absent. The confirmation guard adds context, but the agent is left to infer the outcome of execution.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, except restating the confirm requirement that the schema already conveys.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Añadir un comentario a un issue de Jira' (add a comment to a Jira issue). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like df_transition or df_assign, even without naming them.

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?

It provides a clear intended use and a key prerequisite ('Requiere confirm: true para ejecutar'), but it does not contrast with alternatives such as df_issue or df_assign, nor explain when not to use this tool. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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