Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Backlog MCP Server

Backlog MCP Server

by nulab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_pull_request_comment

DestructiveIdempotent

Update the content of an existing pull request comment by specifying the pull request, repository or project, and comment ID. Use it to revise feedback without adding a new comment.

Instructions

Updates a comment on a pull request

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
numberYesPull request number
repoIdNoRepository ID
contentYesComment content
repoNameNoRepository name
commentIdYesComment ID
projectIdNoThe numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345)
projectKeyNoThe key of the project (e.g., 'PROJECT')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.15.1
  2. Removedv0.13.1
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv0.11.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / organization
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional organization name. Use list_organizations to inspect available organizations.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. Changed7 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / projectId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345)",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / projectIdOrKey
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Project ID or project key",
-  "type": [
-    "string",
-    "number"
-  ]
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / projectKey
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The key of the project (e.g., 'PROJECT')",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / repoId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Repository ID",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / repoIdOrName
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Repository ID or name",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / repoName
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Repository name",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "projectIdOrKey",
-  "repoIdOrName",
-  "number",
-  "commentId",
-  "content"
-]New value: +[
+  "number",
+  "commentId",
+  "content"
+]
  5. First observed

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond annotations — it doesn't say that existing comment content is overwritten, whether the edit is attributed to the caller, or whether other fields are affected, which matters for a destructive mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but it is so sparse for a 7-parameter destructive mutation that brevity crosses into under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, multi-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify the required trio (number, commentId, content) and how the four optional repo/project identifiers are chosen. None of that is present, leaving the agent dependent on the schema alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning, such as whether repository can be identified via repoId, repoName, projectId, or projectKey, or how those alternatives interact.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Updates') and a specific resource ('a comment on a pull request'), which is unambiguous about what operation is performed. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings such as update_issue_comment or update_pull_request, so an agent must infer which comment type applies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 add_pull_request_comment or update_issue_comment, and no prerequisites (permissions, ownership of the comment) are mentioned. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools