Add a markdown comment to a ticket using its work item key, optionally specifying a workspace.
Add a comment to a ticket.
Args: key: The work item key (e.g. "CPD-123"). body: Comment markdown text. workspace: Workspace slug (optional).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| workspace | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no auth/permission requirements, no indication of whether the comment is appended vs replacing anything, no notification/mention behavior, no mention of rate limits. It mentions markdown only indirectly in the Args list.
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?
The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Args block is justified because the schema carries zero parameter descriptions. Slightly verbose in the minor redundancy between 'key: The work item key' and the parenthetical example, but nothing wasteful.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description should say more about side effects and permissions; the argument documentation is complete but operational context is thin.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents all three parameters, gives a concrete key format example ('CPD-123'), specifies body is markdown text, and flags workspace as optional. That is meaningful added value over the bare schema.
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+resource ('Add a comment to a ticket') clearly and unambiguously. There is no sibling comment tool to differentiate from, though it doesn't distinguish itself from update_ticket or note that comments are a separate artifact.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative routing (e.g., when to comment versus updating the ticket body via update_ticket). Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.