add_commentPost a comment on a Favro card to share updates, feedback, or notes. Provide the card ID, sequential ID, or name plus the comment text.
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?
No annotations are provided and the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about required permissions, whether the comment is attributed to the calling user, rate limits, or failure modes on an unknown card ID. The only behavioral signal is the word 'Add', which implies a non-idempotent mutation without confirming it.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, appropriately sized for a three-parameter tool. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than being a model of tight writing.
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?
The 100% schema coverage and an output schema cover parameters and return values, so the description does not need to restate them. However, with no annotations the description should have covered the mutation's side effects and permission requirements, which it omits entirely.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents card, board, and comment in detail, including the name-lookup caveat for board. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?
The verb+resource pair ('Add a comment to a card') is unambiguous and tells an agent exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from any sibling or state scope limits, which is unnecessary here since no sibling also adds comments.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention that the card must already exist. The agent must infer everything from the sibling list and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.