Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
testit-mcp-server

testit-mcp-server

by iampopovich
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_work_item_comment

Adds a comment to a TestIT work item using its UUID and comment text.

Instructions

Add a comment to a work item.

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": {
      "workItemId": "<workItemId>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "create_work_item_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
workItemIdYesWork item UUID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating that a comment is added — no mention of what is returned, whether the comment is attributed to the calling user, or what happens on duplicate submission given non-idempotency.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the operation is front-loaded. Its brevity is close to under-specification rather than true conciseness, but the sentence itself is well-formed.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only half its parameters documented, the description is too thin. It should state what a successful call yields (e.g., the created comment identifier) and note non-idempotent behavior, since neither the schema nor an output schema conveys this.

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 coverage is 50%: workItemId is documented as a UUID, but 'text' has no description. The description does not compensate — it says nothing about accepted content format (plain vs markdown), length limits, or escaping, which is exactly what an agent needs for the undocumented field.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource ('Add a comment to a work item'), so the operation is immediately legible. However, it does not distinguish creation from the sibling update_work_item_comment or delete_work_item_comment, leaving the agent to infer that this is the create path.

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 updating an existing comment or listing comments first. No prerequisites, no mention that the target work item must already exist, and no alternatives named.

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