add_commentPost a comment on a Vimeo video as your account to share feedback or join a discussion with its viewers.
Post a comment on a video as you. This is visible to anyone who can see the video, so it reaches other people. Needs the interact scope. Requires confirm: true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Comment text. | |
| confirm | No | Set true only when the user asked for exactly this action. | |
| video_id | Yes | Video id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / confirm / defaultRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / confirm / descriptionPrevious value: -"A comment is visible to everyone who can see the video as soon as it posts. Set true to proceed."New value: +"Set true only when the user asked for exactly this action."v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations, it discloses two meaningful traits: the comment is publicly visible to anyone who can see the video, and an auth scope (interact) is required along with a confirm flag. It stops short of covering rate limits or irreversibility, so not quite a 5.
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?
Three short sentences with zero filler, and the core action plus its visibility warning are front-loaded. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.
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 3-parameter, no-output-schema tool with rich annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the key gaps: public visibility, required scope, and the confirm gate. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.
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 schema already documents text, video_id, and confirm. The description restates the confirm: true requirement but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.
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 specific verb and resource ('Post a comment on a video') and clarifies the actor with 'as you'. An agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like edit_comment, delete_comment, and list_comments without opening any schema.
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?
The description supplies prerequisites ('Needs the interact scope', 'Requires confirm: true'), which is useful context, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives routing and no when-not guidance. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.