Adds a markdown comment to a specified wiki page in Dooray, returning the new comment ID for tracking.
Create a comment on a wiki page. Content is in markdown format. Returns: id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageId | Yes | Wiki page ID (required) | |
| wikiId | Yes | Wiki ID (required) | |
| content | Yes | Comment content in markdown (required) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare it is a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds that content must be markdown and that an id is returned, but says nothing about permissions, whether the page must be open for comments, or failure modes.
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?
Three short sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the action and resource. The return value is stated inline rather than buried.
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?
With only three fully-documented required parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It is slightly thin on preconditions for commenting on a page, but no major gap remains.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's 'Content is in markdown format' restates the schema's own parameter description rather than adding new semantics, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource: create a comment on a wiki page, which is clearly distinct from sibling create-wiki-page and update-wiki-page-comment. It omits explicit sibling differentiation but the verb+resource pair is unambiguous.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create-task-comment or update-wiki-page-comment. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Create'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.