Post comments to Trakt for shows, movies, episodes, and lists. Share your opinion and engage with the Trakt community through the API.
Post a comment.
POST /comments/
Args: body: Request payload. Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already convey that this is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as authentication requirements, side effects, response behavior, or what happens on duplicate posts. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded: the core action comes first, followed by endpoint and parameter guidance. There is no filler or redundant prose.
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 create operation with a nested, opaque body parameter and no output schema explanation, the description is thin. It does not state what a comment is attached to, which fields are required, whether authentication is needed, or what the response contains, so the agent must rely on external lookups.
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?
The schema has a single unconstrained 'body' object with 0% description coverage. The description only labels it as 'Request payload' and tells the agent to consult another endpoint for fields, which is a discovery workaround rather than actual semantic meaning. It does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 opens with 'Post a comment' and gives the explicit endpoint 'POST /comments/', clearly identifying both the action and the resource. It is not a tautology and an agent can tell this creates a comment, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling comment tools like create_comments_by_id_replies.
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 about when to use this tool instead of the many related comment tools. The only advice is to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint for body fields, which is about parameter discovery, not tool selection or usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.