comment_createCreates a new comment on a specified Drupal entity. Provide entity type, entity ID, subject, body, and optional parent ID or author.
Create a new comment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pid | No | ||
| uid | No | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| subject | Yes | ||
| entity_id | Yes | ||
| field_name | No | comment | |
| entity_type | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the comment is auto-approved, whether it requires authentication, what happens on duplicate content, or which entities support comments. For a mutation tool with 7 parameters and zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. Brevity here reflects missing information, not disciplined editing.
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?
A 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema explanation needed but no parameter documentation either, and no behavioral context. The description is far too thin for an agent to invoke this correctly.
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 0% for 7 parameters including required entity_type, entity_id, subject, and body. The description offers no meaning for any parameter, failing to compensate for the complete lack of 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 states a verb and resource ('Create a new comment'), so the basic purpose is clear. However, it fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like comment_update, comment_approve, or comment_thread_list, and adds no scope detail beyond what the name already conveys.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as comment_update or comment_approve. An agent would have to infer usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.