wyea_commentPost work results and progress reports as GitHub issue comments with commit hashes, changed files, and deployment checks. Rejects secrets and logs comments so later waits ignore them.
작업 결과·진행 보고를 이슈 댓글로 남깁니다. 보고는 커밋 해시·바뀐 파일·배포 확인 결과만 짧게. 개인정보·비밀값이 있으면 서버가 거부합니다. 남긴 댓글은 상태 파일 own 에 기록되어 이후 wyea_wait/wyea_check 에 새 댓글로 잡히지 않습니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | 댓글 본문(마크다운) | |
| issue | Yes | GitHub 이슈 번호(비공개 레포 ) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the server rejects personal data/secrets, and that posted comments are recorded in the 'own' status file so they will not resurface as new comments via wyea_wait/wyea_check. It omits auth/permission requirements and rate limits, leaving a small gap.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action (post a report comment), followed by content rules and behavioral caveats. Efficient, though the middle content rules could be trimmed.
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 two-parameter comment tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers side effects, validation behavior, and interaction with sibling tools, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Minor omissions are permission requirements and confirmation of success behavior.
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 two parameters (issue number, markdown body) are already documented in the schema. The description's content guidance (commit hash, files, deployment result) loosely informs what the body should contain but adds no format or constraint semantics beyond the 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('작업 결과·진행 보고를 이슈 댓글로 남깁니다' – leave work/progress reports as an issue comment), which is far more specific than the title alone. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives (e.g. wyea_create_issue vs wyea_comment), but the resource-action pair 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?
It gives clear positive usage context (post work results/progress) and content rules (keep it short with commit hash, changed files, deployment verification). It does not say when NOT to use this tool or point to a sibling alternative, so it stops short of the top score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.