@illodev/taiga-mcp

taiga_issue_comment_create

Add a comment to a Taiga issue by providing its ID and the comment text. Posts via the history endpoint to append updates or feedback directly to the issue thread.

Instructions

Add a comment to a issue. Comment is posted via the history endpoint.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "comment": "<comment>"
    },
    "name": "taiga_issue_comment_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	issue ID
`comment`	Yes	Comment text

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the comment is posted via the history endpoint, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, or response format. As a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence about the history endpoint is somewhat vague and contains a minor grammar error ('a issue'), but overall it is appropriately sized and efficient.

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?

The tool has only two parameters and no output schema, so complexity is low. The description covers the basic action but lacks information about return values, authentication requirements, or specific constraints. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand the operation.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (id as 'issue ID', comment as 'Comment text'). The description adds no additional meaning or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description explicitly states the action ('Add a comment') and the target resource ('a issue'), making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling comment tools by specifying the resource type (issue) rather than user story, task, or wiki.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools for other resource types. The description only states the action without contextual usage direction.

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

Deploy Server