Add comments to a Zuuna card using its key or ID, with @mentions to notify teammates. Keep project updates and feedback in one place.
Add a comment to a card. The author is the user who created the API token. Accepts a card key (ZNA-2001) or id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Comment text (plain text or sanitized HTML; @mentions notify). | |
| card | Yes | Card key (e.g. ZNA-2001) or card id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a meaningful detail: the comment author is the API token creator. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as whether comments can be edited, what happens on failure, or notification side effects beyond what the schema already implies.
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 description is two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the author-attribution detail and identifier guidance each earn their place.
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?
The tool is simple with only two fully documented required parameters. The description provides the key operational nuance (author identity) and identifier format. Without an output schema, it could mention the response shape, but for a straightforward comment-creation call the description is largely sufficient.
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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds slight value by restating that 'card' accepts a key or id, but it does not add new meaning beyond the schema for either parameter.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add a comment to a card.' It also clarifies accepted identifiers. No sibling tool is a comment operation, so it is clearly distinguishable from the provided siblings.
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 practical input guidance by stating that the card can be identified by key or id. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. Usage context is implicit because this is the only comment-related sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.