Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
esa MCP Server

esa MCP Server

Official
by esaio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Update an existing comment

esa_update_comment
Destructive

Update an existing esa team comment by comment ID, replacing its Markdown body. Use it to revise or correct comment content.

Instructions

Updates an existing comment in an esa team by comment ID.

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": {
      "commentId": "<commentId>",
      "bodyMd": "<bodyMd>"
    },
    "name": "esa_update_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userNoComment author's screen_name (owner permission required)
bodyMdYesThe updated comment content in Markdown format. Use 4 spaces for indentation.
teamNameNoTeam name (required). Use esa_get_teams first to see available teams.
commentIdYesThe comment ID to update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.15.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv0.13.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds essentially nothing on the safety profile. It does not say that the update replaces the existing body wholesale, that owner permission may be needed for the author field, or what happens on a bad comment ID — all of which matter for a destructive mutation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with no output schema, and the description covers none of the things an agent would still need: whether the body is fully replaced, what the response contains, or how failures on a nonexistent commentId behave. Annotations carry the safety signal but the description leaves real operational gaps.

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%, so all four parameters (including the owner-permission caveat on 'user' and the teamName lookup hint) are documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes commentId and adds no format or usage detail beyond it, which is the baseline for full-coverage schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a clear verb ('Updates') and resource ('an existing comment in an esa team'), but 'by comment ID' merely echoes the required commentId parameter. It does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like esa_delete_comment or esa_create_comment, which an agent must choose between in the same workflow.

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 guidance on when to use this versus esa_create_comment, esa_get_comment, or esa_delete_comment, and no stated preconditions (e.g. needing to fetch the comment first). The agent must infer all routing from the name alone.

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