Add page-level comments in Docmost using Markdown, optionally replying to a parent comment. Inline selection comments are not supported.
Add a page-level comment. Inline selection comments are not supported.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_id | Yes | Page UUID or slugId | |
| markdown | Yes | Comment body as Markdown | |
| parent_comment_id | No | Parent comment UUID to reply |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, so the description is not required to repeat that. It adds useful context about page-level scope and the unsupported inline selection case. However, it does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as permissions, rate limits, or result behavior beyond what annotations cover.
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 important limitation about inline selection comments is stated directly. Every word earns its 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?
For a simple create operation with a fully documented schema and annotations covering mutation safety, the description provides sufficient context: it names the object being created and an important limitation. It does not describe the return value or permissions, but given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, these are not critical gaps.
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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters, including the purpose of parent_comment_id. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a page-level comment.' It also distinguishes the tool from inline selection comments, making the operation unmistakable. No sibling tool name is present, but the resource and scope are clear.
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 a clear context: use this tool for page-level comments, not inline selection comments. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions for choosing update_comment, delete_comment, or get_comments. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.