Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Vibeflow

Vibeflow

by zorcec
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Add comment

add_comment

Add a comment to a task without changing its fields to record progress or discuss work; use dryRun to validate the note before writing.

Instructions

Add a comment to a task without changing any of its fields. The body is comment — the same name as the CLI's --comment flag and update_task's field. author defaults to agent; pass dryRun to validate without writing. Use it to discuss or record progress; use update_task's comment when the note accompanies a status or field change (review REQUIRES the note on the same call).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTask id — a full id, or any unique prefix of one, of the task to comment on. An id that matches nothing is refused with TASK_NOT_FOUND; no task is created.
authorNoComment author. Defaults to agent; the CLI always derives it from git config, so only MCP can override it.agent
dryRunNoPreview only: validate the comment without writing it to the task.
commentYesThe comment body — what changed, what you verified, what a reviewer should know. Required and non-empty: an empty body is refused by input validation before the tool runs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.22.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / author / description
      Added value: +"Comment author. Defaults to agent; the CLI always derives it from git config, so only MCP can override it."
    • addedInput schema / properties / dryRun / description
      Added value: +"Preview only: validate the comment without writing it to the task."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.21.1
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  3. First observedv0.20.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (not read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the append-only semantics, the `author` default of agent with the note that only MCP can override git config, and dryRun as a validate-without-write path. It stops short of saying what happens on repeated identical calls, which matters given idempotentHint=false, so not a 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and the no-field-change guarantee, then naming, then routing. The CLI-flag aside is mildly incidental but earns its place by anchoring the parameter name across surfaces.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 4-parameter, no-output-schema append tool, the description covers mutation scope, defaults, the dry-run escape hatch, and sibling routing. The only real gap is return/duplication behavior (does a second identical call add a second comment?), which is a meaningful omission given idempotentHint=false.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-tool semantics the schema cannot: `comment` is the same name as the CLI's --comment flag and update_task's field, which is directly actionable for an agent composing calls. It also reinforces the author and dryRun defaults, though those largely restate the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a comment to a task') and immediately bounds the scope with 'without changing any of its fields,' which separates it from update_task. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit routing rule: use this to discuss or record progress, use update_task's `comment` when the note accompanies a status or field change. It even flags a hard constraint ('review REQUIRES the note on the same call'), which prevents a wrong-tool call that would otherwise look valid.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools