Skip to main content
Glama

Done Bear

by com.donebear

Manage Task Comment

comment
Destructive

Write on a task's comment thread. action: "add" posts a comment, attributed to the connected user and visible to everyone in the workspace, so write it as a message to the user's teammates rather than a note to the user; nobody is notified. action: "edit" rewrites one of your own (only its author may, and it is then marked edited). action: "remove" deletes one permanently — comments have no Trash — so confirm with the user first. Read the thread with task_show and include: ["comments"].

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoComment text. Required to add or edit
taskYesWorkspace-scoped task number, encoded as a string
actionYesWhat to do on the thread
commentNoComment UUID or prefix (>= 4 chars). Required to edit or remove
contextYesExplain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."
workspaceNoWorkspace id, slug, or name
idempotency_keyNoStable key that makes retries safe: repeated calls with the same key create only one record and return the same id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
okYes
actionYes
taskIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses attribution to the connected user, workspace-wide visibility, lack of notifications, author-only edit permission, the 'marked edited' trait, and permanent deletion with no Trash. This is rich behavioral context that materially affects how an agent should invoke the tool.

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 compact yet dense, organized by action, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds operational value; there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive, three-action tool with seven parameters, the description covers each action's behavior, side effects, prerequisites, and the sibling tool for reading. The presence of an output schema means return-value documentation is already handled elsewhere, so nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining what each action value does and by advising on body tone ('write it as a message to the user's teammates rather than a note to the user'), which improves correct usage of the body parameter.

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?

The description opens with 'Write on a task's comment thread,' a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the three actions (add, edit, remove). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling task_show, which is explicitly named for reading the thread.

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?

It gives per-action guidance: add is for public teammate-facing messages, edit is only for one's own comments, and remove requires user confirmation. It also explicitly routes read operations to task_show with include: ['comments'], making the when-to-use boundary precise.

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

All Done Bear toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map to clearly distinct resources and actions: task lifecycle verbs, sub-resource tools (attachment, checklist, comment), and search are easy to tell apart. The only mild overlaps are search vs task_list's built-in search parameter and get_context vs task_list for recent tasks, but the descriptions give enough guidance to avoid frequent misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Task operations consistently follow a task_verb pattern, but other tools use bare resource nouns (attachment, checklist, comment, project), plus get_context, guide, label_create, and search break the pattern further. The names are readable, but the convention is mixed rather than uniform.

Tool Count5/5

At 15 tools, the set sits at the upper end of the well-scoped range but each tool has a distinct responsibility: task lifecycle, search, sub-resources, project/label management, context, and guidance. None feel redundant, and the count matches the breadth of the task-management domain.

Completeness3/5

Core task workflows are well covered: create, read, update, complete, reopen, archive, list, and search, plus comments, checklists, and attachments. Notable gaps remain: labels only support creation, archived tasks have no explicit restore path, and projects cannot be deleted or archived.

Resources