Adds a Markdown note to a specified Vikunja task so you can record updates or context directly on the task.
Add a comment (Markdown) to a task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Task id. | |
| text | Yes | Comment text in Markdown. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond this – it does not mention that repeated calls create duplicate comments (non-idempotent), whether the author is attributed, whether notifications fire, or what happens on an invalid task id.
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 no waste. It is appropriately terse for a two-parameter tool, though that terseness is partly why usage and behavior are underspecified.
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 simple 2-param mutation with full schema coverage and annotations present, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits return/payload behavior (no output schema exists) and the non-idempotent duplicate-comment caveat, both of which an agent would benefit from knowing before calling.
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% and both parameters (id, text) are fully documented, including the Markdown constraint. The description only restates what the schema already says, so 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?
Specific verb+resource ("Add a comment") with the format qualifier (Markdown) and target (a task). No sibling among create_task/get_task/update_task/list_* overlaps, so the distinction is implicit rather than stated.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus update_task (e.g. editing an existing comment body) or any prerequisite that the task id must exist. The agent must infer all usage conditions 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.