Skip to main content
Glama

Comment on feedback

loopback_add_comment

Append comments to feedback items for investigation notes, follow-up questions, or preserving reasoning.

Instructions

Append a comment to a feedback item's discussion trail. Use for investigation notes, questions back to the reporter, or reasoning worth preserving.

Args: id, author, body (markdown ok).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesFeedback id, e.g. 'fb_mabc12_3f9a1c'
bodyYesComment text (markdown ok)
authorYesComment author, e.g. 'claude-code' or 'dj'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesFeedback id, e.g. 'fb_mabc12_3f9a1c'
urlNo
bodyYes
typeYes
extraYesFree-form captured context. Read `extra.failed_responses` for failing requests with up to 2KB of response body, and `extra.context` for LLM/automation run metadata (run_id, model, trace_url).
linksYesRepo/branch/commit/PR of the fix
routeNo
titleYes
sourceYes
statusYes
consoleYesConsole lines captured at report time
networkYesNetwork calls captured at report time
projectYes
commentsNoFull audit trail
reporterYes
severityYes
created_atYes
replay_urlNo
resolutionNo
updated_atYes
attachmentsNoFiles attached to this item. `intent` decides what you do with each: 'reference' is context for the fix and never ships; 'asset' is a deliverable — copy it from `path` to `target_path` in the repo, commit it, and record that with loopback_link_change. Read files from `path` directly rather than fetching `url`.
repro_stepsYes
dom_selectorNo
assignee_agentNoAgent currently holding the claim
screenshot_pathNo
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'append' semantics but does not disclose further behavioral traits like potential side effects (e.g., notifications, permanence of comments) or prerequisites. It is consistent with annotations but adds only modest behavioral context beyond them.

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?

The description is exceptionally concise, using two sentences to establish purpose and use cases, followed by a compact args line. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, an output schema exists, and the description covers purpose and usage adequately. It does not mention idempotency (repeated calls create multiple comments) or error cases, but these are not essential given the low complexity and available structured information.

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 each parameter having clear descriptions and examples. The description's 'Args: id, author, body (markdown ok)' simply repeats schema information without adding new meaning, so it adds no value beyond the structured schema.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Append a comment') and resource ('feedback item's discussion trail'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_feedback or update_status. It is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides concrete use cases ('investigation notes, questions back to the reporter, or reasoning worth preserving'), giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/joshidikshant/loopback'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server