Skip to main content
Glama

fc_update_comment

Modify existing comments by updating the message content or changing the comment status within the FluentCommunity platform.

Instructions

Update an existing comment

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
comment_idYesThe ID of the comment to update
messageNoUpdated comment message
statusNoComment status

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for fc_update_comment tool. It extracts comment_id and updateData from args, makes a POST request to the WordPress API endpoint fc-manager/v1/comments/{comment_id} with the update data, and returns the response or error.
    fc_update_comment: async (args: any) => {
      try {
        const { comment_id, ...updateData } = args;
        const response = await makeWordPressRequest('POST', `fc-manager/v1/comments/${comment_id}`, updateData);
        return { toolResult: { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(response, null, 2) }] } };
      } catch (error: any) {
        return { toolResult: { isError: true, content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Error: ${error.message}` }] } };
      }
    },
  • Zod input schema validation for the fc_update_comment tool, requiring comment_id (number) and message (string).
    const updateCommentSchema = z.object({
      comment_id: z.number().describe('The ID of the comment to update'),
      message: z.string().describe('Updated comment message')
    });
  • Tool registration entry in the fluentCommunityTools array, defining the tool name, description, and referencing the input schema.
    {
      name: 'fc_update_comment',
      description: 'Update an existing FluentCommunity comment',
      inputSchema: { type: 'object', properties: updateCommentSchema.shape }
    },
Behavior2/5

Does 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 states 'update' implies a mutation, but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Update an existing comment' is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage context, and output expectations, making it insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters (comment_id, message, status) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Update an existing comment' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (comment), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like fc_update_post or fc_update_space, which follow the same 'update [resource]' pattern, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing comment ID), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like fc_create_comment or fc_delete_comment, leaving usage context unclear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/wplaunchify/fluent-community-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server