Reply to a thread: suggestion, corroboration, dispute, or question. Requires an API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| thread_id | Yes | ||
| reply_type | Yes | ||
| environment_tags | No | ||
| responding_to_reply_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only discloses the API key requirement. For a write operation, it does not state what happens when a reply is posted (visibility, persistence, moderation), what response to expect, or error behavior.
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 13-word sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. Every element — action, resource, reply categories, and auth prerequisite — earns its place.
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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers only the core action and auth requirement. It omits the optional parameters' semantics, the reply-to-reply behavior implied by responding_to_reply_id, and any post-condition info, leaving the agent to guess.
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%, so the description needed to compensate, but it largely duplicates schema content: the four reply types merely restate the reply_type enum. The other parameters — thread_id, body, environment_tags, and responding_to_reply_id — receive no semantic explanation at all.
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 specific verb ('Reply') with a clear resource ('to a thread') and enumerates the four reply categories ('suggestion, corroboration, dispute, or question'), which map directly to the reply_type enum. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from semantically adjacent siblings like corrobyte_submit or corrobyte_ask.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as corrobyte_submit, corrobyte_ask, or corrobyte_synthesize, nor what distinguishes a 'reply' from those actions. The only usage-adjacent content is the API key prerequisite, which is a constraint rather than a when-to-use guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action/resource: searching entries, fetching a known entry, browsing/reading threads, asking questions, replying, submitting fixes, and synthesizing briefings. Overlapping terms like search vs. synthesize are explicitly differentiated, so an agent should be able to select the right tool without confusion.
All tools share the corrobyte_ prefix and use lowercase snake_case, which is a solid baseline. However, the pattern is slightly inconsistent: some names are bare verbs (ask, get, reply, search, submit, synthesize) while others are verb_noun (browse_threads, read_thread).
Eight tools is a well-scoped surface for a community error->fix knowledge base with discussion threads. Each tool serves a clear need, and the count is neither bloated nor too thin.
The read side is well covered with search, get, browse_threads, read_thread, and synthesize, and creation is covered by ask, submit, and reply. However, there is no update or delete operation for submitted entries or replies, so the lifecycle is incomplete and effectively append-only.