Add a comment to a Favro card using its ID, sequential ID, or name. Specify the board for name lookups to ensure the correct card is targeted.
Add a comment to a card.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| card | Yes | Card ID, sequential ID (#123), or name | |
| board | No | Board ID or name (needed for name lookup; optional for sequential ID) | |
| comment | Yes | Comment text to post |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / board / descriptionAdded value: +"Board ID or name (needed for name lookup; optional for sequential ID)"Input schema / properties / card / descriptionAdded value: +"Card ID, sequential ID (#123), or name"Input schema / properties / comment / descriptionAdded value: +"Comment text to post"v0.5.0Does 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. It only states the action without explaining side effects, permissions needed, or any return value, even though an output schema exists.
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 a single, efficiently front-loaded sentence. It is concise but could be slightly expanded to include behavioral details without harming conciseness.
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?
Given the lack of annotations, the description omits important context such as when the optional 'board' parameter is necessary, any constraints on comment text, or the structure of the output. This is insufficient for a complete understanding.
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 input schema already has 100% description coverage, clearly explaining each parameter (e.g., 'card' accepts ID, sequential ID, or name). The description adds no further semantic value beyond what the schema provides.
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 'Add a comment to a card.' uses a specific verb ('add') and resource ('comment' to a 'card'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'assign_card' or 'create_card'.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as updating a card or using other interaction tools. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.