GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_issue_comments_edit

DestructiveIdempotent

Modify an existing comment on a GitFlic issue by providing the project, issue ID, comment ID, and updated message.

Instructions

Edit an existing issue comment.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "commentId": "<commentId>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_issue_comments_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`raw`	No	Return the full, un-slimmed GitFlic response for THIS call (no token compression). Use when the default slim view dropped a field you need.
`message`	Yes
`project`	Yes
`commentId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond them — no note about ownership/permission requirements, what happens to the prior message text, or whether the edit is reversible.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short sentence with no filler and the core verb front-loaded, so it is structurally clean. But the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency — there is no content beyond the minimum.

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?

For a destructive five-parameter mutation with 20% schema coverage and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. An agent cannot tell which record is targeted, what permission constraints apply, or how the result is reported.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'raw' is documented). The description does not clarify the four required parameters, and the distinction between 'id' (issue identifier) and 'commentId' is genuinely ambiguous without help from the text.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The sentence names a specific verb (edit) and resource (issue comment), so the operation is identifiable. However it adds almost nothing beyond the tool name 'gitflic_issue_comments_edit' and does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as gitflic_issue_comment (likely creation) or gitflic_issue_comments_delete.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the comment-creation or delete siblings, and no prerequisites (e.g., must the comment be authored by the caller?). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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

Deploy Server