Skip to main content
Glama
delega-dev

delega-mcp

by delega-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

add_comment

Attach a comment to a specific task by task ID, capturing the author name and comment text so task discussions and context stay recorded.

Instructions

Add a comment to a task

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
authorNoComment author name
contentYesComment text
task_idYesThe task ID to comment on

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.19.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / task_id / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / task_id / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number"
+]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.2.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / task_id / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / task_id / type
      Removed value: -"integer"
  3. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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, yet it discloses nothing about mutation semantics, required permissions, idempotency, or whether the comment is editable/deletable. A single phrase is far too thin for a write operation 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?

One sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though arguably under-specified rather than concisely complete.

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 and no output schema, the description omits return behavior, error cases, and permissions. The schema covers parameters but the description leaves significant behavioral territory blank.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds nothing about the task_id type flexibility or author defaults. No compensation is needed since the schema fully documents all three parameters.

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 (add) and resource (comment) bound to a task, which is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like update_task or get_task. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. An agent gets no signal on when to comment versus updating a task's context or description.

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