Adds a comment to a Backlog issue using its ID or key, with optional attachments and user notifications. Use it to record updates, questions, or resolutions on an issue.
Adds a comment to an issue
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | Comment content | |
| issueId | No | The numeric ID of the issue (e.g., 12345) | |
| issueKey | No | The key of the issue (e.g., 'PROJ-123') | |
| attachmentId | No | Attachment IDs | |
| notifiedUserId | No | User IDs to notify |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1v0.13.1v0.11.0Input schema / properties / organizationAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional organization name. Use list_organizations to inspect available organizations.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Input schema / properties / issueIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The numeric ID of the issue (e.g., 12345)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / issueIdOrKeyRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Issue ID or issue key",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "number"
- ]
-}Input schema / properties / issueKeyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The key of the issue (e.g., 'PROJ-123')",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "issueIdOrKey",
- "content"
-]New value: +[
+ "content"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the mutation semantics (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent, closed-world), and the description is consistent with them, so there is no contradiction. But it adds nothing beyond that boilerplate: it doesn't say whether the comment is attributed to the caller, whether attachment IDs must be pre-uploaded, or what notification side effects the notifiedUserId list triggers.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded, so there is nothing wasteful. But the brevity comes at the cost of the guidance that would make the sentence earn its place for a five-parameter mutation tool.
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?
Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema fully documents all five params, so much of the burden is already carried. Still, for a write tool with no output schema and an issueId/issueKey ambiguity, the description is thinner than ideal — it never addresses identifier choice or the attach/notify 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents each parameter and the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the key ambiguity left in the schema: only content is required, yet the tool must be disambiguated by either issueId or issueKey, and the description never says which to supply or whether they are interchangeable.
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 concrete verb and resource ("Adds a comment to an issue"), so the action is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to separate itself from near-identical siblings such as add_pull_request_comment and update_issue_comment, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the names alone.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_issue_comment or add_pull_request_comment, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that an issue identifier must be supplied). The agent gets a purpose but no selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.