Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
contextium-mcp-server

contextium-mcp-server

Official
by contextium-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

add_comment

Add a comment to a file or reply to an existing comment with optional line anchoring; replying to external commenters sends them an email.

Instructions

Add a comment to a file, or reply to an existing comment (pass parentCommentId). Authored as the connected user. Optionally anchor to a line with lineNumber. Replying to an external (guest) commenter also emails them.

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": {
      "fileId": "<fileId>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "add_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileIdYesUUID of the file
contentYesComment text (plain text, max 10000 chars)
lineNumberNoOptional 1-based line to anchor the comment to
parentCommentIdNoOptional comment id to reply to (from list_comments)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses authentication (authored as connected user), anchoring behavior (optional lineNumber), and email side effect for external replies. With no annotations, it covers key behavioral traits.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with primary action, every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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?

Lacks return value details (e.g., comment ID or success indicator). No output schema, so description should fill that gap. Otherwise complete for a create tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers 100% of parameters, but description adds context: content is plain text, parentCommentId sourced from list_comments, lineNumber is 1-based. Adds meaning beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it adds a comment or replies, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_comments' (list) and 'resolve_comment' (resolve).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly describes when to use (add comment or reply) and a side effect (email to external commenters). Implicitly contrasts with siblings, but no explicit when-not-to-use.

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