Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

reply_to_comment

Post a threaded reply to an existing comment by parent comment ID to keep Kiln design discussions organized; requires a valid parent ID and non-empty reply body.

Instructions

Reply to an existing comment (joins its thread).

Free door, tiered answer — Free: On the designs you keep · Pro: ✓ · Business: ✓ · Enterprise: ✓.

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": {
      "parent_comment_id": "<parent_comment_id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "reply_to_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesThe reply's words; empty is refused.
authorNoWho wrote it. On Kiln's servers the signed-in account is always used and this is ignored; elsewhere, omitted means the caller's account if Kiln knows it, else none.
parent_comment_idYesThe id of the comment being replied to; an id that is not found is refused.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / author / description
      Added value: +"Who wrote it.  On Kiln's servers the signed-in account is always used and this is ignored; elsewhere, omitted means the caller's account if Kiln knows it, else none."
    • addedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Added value: +"The reply's words; empty is refused."
    • addedInput schema / properties / parent_comment_id / description
      Added value: +"The id of the comment being replied to; an id that is not found is refused."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely new facts: the reply is nested into the parent's thread, and availability is gated by subscription tier (Free/Pro/Business/Enterprise). It omits whether the reply can be edited or deleted afterward and what happens on tier denial.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single parenthetical gloss, and the total length is two short sentences. The tier sentence is compressed to near-unreadability ("Pro: ✓ · Business: ✓"), which costs some clarity but no real length.

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 simple three-parameter write with full schema documentation and existing annotations, the description covers purpose and thread nesting adequately. With no output schema, it leaves unclear whether the call returns the new comment id or just success, which an agent would need to chain a follow-up call.

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%, with the schema itself explaining that empty bodies are refused, unknown parent ids are refused, and the author field is ignored on Kiln's servers. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is acceptable given the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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+resource ("Reply to an existing comment") and adds the behavioral detail that it joins the parent's thread. It does not distinguish itself from comment siblings such as add_mesh_comment, edit_mesh_comment, or resolve_comment_thread, so an agent must infer the boundary between replying to a thread and starting/editing/resolving one.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no stated prerequisites beyond the implicit need for a parent comment id. The closest thing to guidance is "on the designs you keep" in the tier line, which is about entitlement rather than tool selection.

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