Skip to main content
Glama

Add a note

add_comment

Adds a note to a task’s conversation, letting you record context, updates, or decisions directly on the task.

Instructions

Adds a note to a task’s conversation.

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": {
      "task": "<task>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "add_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskYesThe task: its number, e.g. TASK-000123, or its id.
textYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the note is attributed to the caller, whether it is editable or deletable afterwards, whether notifications are sent, or that the 5000-character body limit applies.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and target front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere rather than through tight editing.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. However, with no output schema and no statement of what is returned (e.g. the created comment's id) or how the note is attributed, an agent is left guessing about the result of the call.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 50%: the 'task' parameter documents that it accepts a number like TASK-000123 or an id, while 'text' has no description at all. The description does nothing to compensate — it does not clarify that 'text' is the plain-text body of the comment or what format/limits apply.

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 — adding a note to a task's conversation — which maps cleanly to add_comment. It is unambiguous about what is created and where, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as update_task or attach_files.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. does the caller need to be assigned to the task?), and no mention of alternatives such as update_task for changing the task itself. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'conversation'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.