Add a comment to a task by ref, enabling AI assistants on CI, servers, or containers to post updates to a remote fenbs board via HTTP without a browser.
Add a comment to a task by ref.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| body | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the basic mutation. It doesn't say whether the comment is editable/deletable, whether permissions or auth are required, or what the task state implications are.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tight sentence with no filler and the verb+resource front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It omits permissions, return behavior, and task-state effects that an agent would need to invoke it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It loosely conveys that ref identifies the target task and that the added 'comment' corresponds to body, but it adds no format, syntax, or length details beyond the param names themselves.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (add) and resource (comment) with a scoping detail (to a task by ref). An agent can identify the operation, though it does nothing to distinguish itself from related sibling tools like fenbs_add_context_note or fenbs_update_item.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. In a sibling set containing several note/comment-adding tools, the description provides no routing signal for choosing this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.