Post comments to Kanban tasks using task ID or filename, with optional author and project path for accurate attribution.
Add a comment to a task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path to the project root directory | |
| text | Yes | Comment text | |
| author | No | Comment author (defaults to KANBN_USER or git identity) | |
| taskId | Yes | ID or filename of the task to comment on |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose side effects on its own. It only says 'Add a comment to a task,' which implies a write operation but does not state whether comments are appended, whether existing comments are affected, what permissions are needed, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant words or filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan, though it is extremely concise.
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?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior, such as whether the task must already exist and what the tool returns. It is too sparse to be considered complete for a mutating tool, though the schema covers parameters.
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?
All four parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.
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: 'Add a comment to a task.' This clearly distinguishes it from other task-related tools like kanbn_edit_task or kanbn_move_task, and no sibling handles comments, so the purpose 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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kanbn_edit_task. It implies usage when a comment needs to be added, but it does not mention prerequisites like the task existing or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.