Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
phabricator-mcp

phabricator-mcp

by freelancer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

phabricator_task_add_comment

Add a comment to a Maniphest task using its PHID or ID; supports Remarkup-formatted text for updates and discussion.

Instructions

Add a comment to a Maniphest task

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": {
      "objectIdentifier": "<objectIdentifier>",
      "comment": "<comment>"
    },
    "name": "phabricator_task_add_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commentYesComment text (supports Remarkup)
objectIdentifierYesTask PHID or ID (e.g., "T123")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.19

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only but non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is partly covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context: no mention of permissions, whether the comment triggers notifications, Remarkup handling, or what the call returns. For a write tool with only two annotation hints, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. Nothing is buried or repeated.

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 tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally viable. It omits any behavioral or return-value context, but the simplicity of the operation and the structured fields limit how much more is strictly necessary.

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%, with both required parameters (objectIdentifier, comment) fully documented in the schema including Remarkup support and PHID/ID format. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the schema carries the load and a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Add a comment to a Maniphest task"), which is enough to tell it apart from the sibling comment tools targeting documents, blog posts, or revisions. It does not explicitly name those siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tool versus alternatives such as phabricator_document_add_comment or phabricator_revision_inline_comment, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The usage is only implied by the purpose statement.

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