Skip to main content
Glama

reply_to_comment

Post a response to an existing comment in Ed Discussion, supporting markdown formatting and optional privacy settings.

Instructions

Reply to an existing comment

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
comment_idYesComment ID to reply to
contentYesReply body (markdown or Ed XML)
is_privateNo
is_anonymousNo

Implementation Reference

  • The actual implementation of the replyToComment API method.
    async replyToComment(
      commentId: number,
      content: string,
      opts: { is_private?: boolean; is_anonymous?: boolean } = {}
    ): Promise<{ comment: EdComment }> {
      return this.request<{ comment: EdComment }>(
        "POST",
        `comments/${commentId}/comments`,
        {
          comment: {
            type: "comment",
            content,
            is_private: opts.is_private ?? false,
            is_anonymous: opts.is_anonymous ?? false,
          },
        }
      );
    }
    
    async endorseComment(commentId: number): Promise<void> {
  • src/index.ts:340-359 (registration)
    The MCP tool registration and handler wrapper for reply_to_comment.
    server.tool(
      "reply_to_comment",
      "Reply to an existing comment",
      {
        comment_id: z.number().describe("Comment ID to reply to"),
        content: z.string().describe("Reply body (markdown or Ed XML)"),
        is_private: z.boolean().default(false),
        is_anonymous: z.boolean().default(false),
      },
      async ({ comment_id, content, is_private, is_anonymous }) => {
        try {
          const result = await api.replyToComment(comment_id, ensureEdXml(content), {
            is_private,
            is_anonymous,
          });
          return ok(result);
        } catch (err) {
          return fail(err);
        }
      }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It fails to explain side effects (notifications sent to original commenter), visibility rules (public vs private replies), or the implications of anonymous posting despite these being configurable via parameters.

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 description is extremely brief (four words), which prevents verbosity, but this conciseness comes at the cost of usefulness. The single sentence fails to earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name itself.

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 tool with 4 parameters (2 undocumented), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It omits crucial context about privacy controls, reply threading behavior, and return values that an agent would need to use this tool effectively.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 50% (comment_id and content described; is_private and is_anonymous undocumented). The description adds no parameter context to compensate—critical gaps remain around what 'is_private' and 'is_anonymous' actually control, and no mention of the 'Ed XML' format referenced in the schema.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Reply to an existing comment' largely restates the tool name (tautology). While it confirms the basic action, it fails to distinguish this tool from the sibling 'post_comment', leaving ambiguity about when to create a new comment versus replying to an existing one.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'post_comment', 'edit_thread', or other interaction tools. There are no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., needing the comment_id from a previous call) or warnings about usage context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rob-9/edstem-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server